AT&T Center is San Antonio posted or not?

[twomillenium]

By his admitting " I do not know if the passage of CHL has changed this in case law. I am pretty sure I would not want to be the test case and I am sure there will need to be one if the legislature does not act." might mean he has not checked changes to law in over 20 years. I know for a fact, in Real Estate law, that some of the laws in effect 20+ years ago could get you into trouble now.

Laws change and evolve constantly, I would not put a lot of weight in laws written decades ago, unless they were researched for changes to current dates.

And you don't know that the law has changed that either, so unless you can find recent case law (none I am aware of), then we don't know how it would be ruled. Again, 46.035 would be your argument for defense against an arrest and/or conviction.

Might be a good practice to read whole post, even the last nine words.

Yeah, I read it and I stand by my post. Steve and I both know what the law says now and changes made. BUT, until there is a test case that incorporates the change, then you don't know how it will be treated in a court of law.

I apologize if I stated vaguely, but if you read and understood what I thought I said, then you would realize I said that the laws would need to be researched to present and never said that I knew that the law had changed nor that the law had not changed.

[srothstein]

There have been several posts about my post and I do not want to clutter up the thread with a response to each individually. Here is my general answer to the posts.

The first and most clear one is the question about other buildings in the zoo. If the alcohol is sold in one building but the license covers the hole zoo, I would think that any court would say it covers every building in the zoo. The definition in 46.035 does not say the premises where sold. The section says on the premises that are licensed. If the license covers the whole zoo, then it covers all buildings in the zoo even if alcohol is not sold there right now.

The second clear one was who and where arrested. Yes, I am referring to non-CHL people when I say we arrested them in the parking lot. Too be precise, I am referring to parking lots of places with a TABC license or permit. This includes people before the CHL law and to non-CHLs after the law until the MPA was passed.

The third is a little less clear. I am NOT saying that it is clearly legal or illegal to carry on the sidewalk of a zoo that has a 51% license covering the whole zoo. I am saying that it could be taken either way by the courts. I am aware of the changes in the law, at least the statute law. I am not able to keep up with every case to know all of the case law out there. There may be a case that has decided this that I am not aware of.

But, in the area of case law, I am aware that courts tend to rule on the basis of a principle of stare decisis. This means they tend to follow previous case law. It has been called a fancy way of saying that because we were wrong once, we will continue to be wrong. This is not quite true because the courts always look at new laws to see if they changed things. Sometimes they specifically say the old case law no longer applies and sometimes they say that it applies, but slightly differently because of the new law. I have always seen court cases where I think the court ruled incorrectly, especially in the search and seizure area where the Constitution is intentionally vague on what is required.

One of my career goals was to make sure my name never appeared on a Supreme Court case. I recommend this as a guiding principle for most people. There is an old saying that if a case gets to the jury for a decision, it is really a crap shoot on how it will go. I have been surprised by juries several times. I think this also applies to appeals courts. As a general rule, I can see what I think they will rule because they tend to rely on the exact wording of the law. But there is a problem with this if the law is vague or contradictory or if the plain interpretation would make no sense. Then they try to read the legislature's mind and guess what the intent was.

This last part is important in this case. The law is clear that TABC is allowed to define the premises to include the sidewalks and in a fenced in area, this makes sense. Banning firearms in a bar (51% location) also makes sense to any. Saying that the ban does not apply to the open parts of a bar appears to make no sense and contradict the intent of the clause banning carry there. How the courts will decide is a real wild card on this, and I am going to suggest that it strongly depends on the specific facts of the case that gets to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Let me give you two scenarios that show exactly how much of a difference the specific case facts will make a. First scenario is a zoo where there is a contract vendor. The vendor only sells alcohol and has a license that includes the whole zoo. A person is caught with a pistol and a CHL inside the zoo and has not been drinking. Say he is caught by the wind blowing a jacket open and someone else sees the pistol. In a case like this, I think the court would probably agree with us that the sidewalks are not included. There is no guarantee of that though.

Second scenario is a nightclub that has a open, uncovered patio area. The patio can be accessed from the parking lot through a fence or from the inside of the club through a side door. There is also a front door to the club. The person with a CHL has not been drinking and is dancing. He is his group's designated driver so he has had no alcohol at all. As he is dancing he bumps into another patron who is intoxicated. The drunk starts a fight over his drink being spilled by the dancer. The CHL tries to de-escalate the situation and is unsuccessful. It eventually builds to his shooting the drunk in self-defense. In this case, I think the court would probably rule that the open area is covered by the license and is part of the premises. It may also cause trouble with the self-defense claim. Again, there is no guarantee but the court would look at the expectation of encountering a drunk and getting into a fight, which is why the ban was put into effect.

I tend to agree that the open areas are not covered, but I am not confident that it would be held that way by the court. As a result I counsel caution and not carrying there. It will take a court case to be sure and people on the bleeding edge of criminal law tend to get cut.

[ScottDLS]

Steve - Are you aware of how the 51% booths at the State Fair of Texas are licensed? I ask because I really don't know, but I would assume that since it is allowed to take beer/wine almost anywhere in the park, that the boundaries of the licenses would include the entire Fair Park. I seem to remember going to the State Fair c.1997 and it being posted with a 51% sign. I had a license and left my CCW in the car. At some point after that they began allow CC. I believe as a result of a lawsuit.

How would this reconcile with the Waco zoo's claim that they are a 51% throughout the entire zoo due to one licensee? Maybe you could argue that since the Zoo Society itself holds the permit, it makes the whole Zoo off limits. Whereas in the fair the vendors are individually owned.

The arrests/prosecutions that you point out for licensee parking lots are under 46.02...i.e. non-CHL's. 46.02 does have a definition of "premises" that includes real property (i.e. property under your control)...that would seem to support prosecution under 46.02 on the "TABC licensee controlled premises", to include parking lots...but 46.035 which has a very specific definition in its own paragraph, would be a tougher hill to climb for the prosecution regardless of whether the CHL had consumed any alcohol (presuming they weren't intoxicated).

I don't want to be a test case or recommend that anybody break the law they best understand it, but I would not be intimidated from carrying (concealed) in the public walkway areas of a zoo.

[srothstein]

ScottDLS. I am not aware of how the licensees are licensed at the Fair, nor the specifics of the zoos. Places like the fair usually get temporary licenses that are good for just the dates of the fair. This is especially true if it is just the vendors.

The zoo has two separate possibilities. The first is that the license is actually held by the zoo or the zoo society. If this is true, I find it hard to believe that 50% of their income is from the alcohol. Dues and admissions count as much as the food does. If it is a vendor, then it is possible that it really is 51% and the license covers the whole zoo.

The trick on both of these is that the license may cover the entire grounds and the permittee may still post signs restricting alcohol to certain areas. Those are owner rules though and not the law.

As for the definition of premises in 46.02, that is new since the addition of the MPA. As I pointed out, I am not aware of arrests since then because most people leave their guns in their cars. I agree that it might make a difference in the way the court looks at the case. I guess I should have mentioned that, in addition to the specific facts of the case, the quality of the attorney will make a difference. He has to be good enough to look at these differences and argue that they make the old case law not apply to his case.

[larryeliz]

Well, we enjoyed a great Trans-Siberian Orchestra concert at the AT&T Center last Saturday. Security was high. They wanded EVERYONE prior to entering the building along with requiring all to empty their pockets. They made me "store" my pocket knife with the Customer Service Dept. I did not see a single 51% sign nor was there a 30.06 sign at the entrance. I guess the wanding procedure achieved their objective of disarming us.

[texasgirl]

Well, we enjoyed a great Trans-Siberian Orchestra concert at the AT&T Center last Saturday. Security was high. They wanded EVERYONE prior to entering the building along with requiring all to empty their pockets. They made me "store" my pocket knife with the Customer Service Dept. I did not see a single 51% sign nor was there a 30.06 sign at the entrance. I guess the wanding procedure achieved their objective of disarming us.

I didn't see this thread before posting a question about AT&T Center yesterday. I'm going to a concert there this weekend with them wanding everyone and emptying pockets I guess it's just my tactical pen for me that night.