Majestic Theater San Antonio--Posted?

[alphonso]

The restaurant and the theater are not the same case at all. In the case of the restaurant, the alcohol business and the non-alcohol business are the same business owned by the same entity. In the case of the theater you have two businesses owned by two separate entities. They just happen to be sharing the same space.

Good point--up to a point

It makes a lot more sense to me for the TABC to license the building red or blue based on the primary nature of the business--in this case an entertainment venue. To view the entertainment venue by an ancillary service that just happens to operate in the same building seems to me to have the tail wagging the dog.

A hypothetical: If a restaurant that had both a bar and a dining area was owned by the city would they determine the 51/non 51% of the entire restaurant based only on the operation of the bar, or of the operations of the entire entity?
Would they create two different business, one for the bar and one for the kitchen, and put the whole operation under license through the bar? If they did, it would be contrary to how all other restaurants are determined to be red or blue.

I suspect that the city would choose to have the tail wag the dog. I say that because that's what they are doing with the theater and museum that came up as examples in this thread.

In other words, they would post 30.06 if they could. Since they can't, they found a way to prohibit CHL anyway.

We do not have to agree, and I've enjoyed the chat we are all having, but I continue to think the city is simply playing a shell game with my rights...

[Keith B]

Keith,

We probably will never know, and probably will never agree.

The mere presence of alcohol does not prohibit CHL. I suspect that they intentionally classify the entire building via TABC through the vendor who is 51% specifically to keep legal guns out of the whole establishment. If they wanted I'm sure the TABC could classify the building to its actual owner, and just acknowledge that there is a 51% business that operates on part of the building.

Again, I can CHL in a non 51% restaurant with alcohol all around me.

In other words, I think "they" are that smart. Wrong headed, but smart nonetheless.

This will be my last trip to the Majestic--tickets are too expensive anyway...

I will disagree with you, they are not that smart. They are not going to just go out and try to contract a company to sell alcohol just to keep CHL's from carrying. it has to do with management and operations only.

Bowling alleys, mu serums, theater, ball parks, etc very commonly use another company and vendors for their food, soft beverages and alcoholic beverages. The vendor MUST hold the alcoholic beverage license if they are the ones who are selling the product. If the Majestic themselves ran the food business an sold the alcohol, THEN they would be listed on the license. Otherwise they aren't going to be the ones listed. And, since the vendor DOES make more than 51% of the revenue off of the sale of alcohol for on premise consumption, THEY MUST POST A 51% SIGN and it covers all areas they want people to be able to drink at.

For the restaurant, if they contracted out the bar to another company, and that company only sold alcohol, then your restaurant would be off-limits also. It has nothing to do with the presence of the alcohol, it all has to do with how much percentage of money is made by the person or company that holds the liquor license for that location.

A good example would be if I contracted to sell alcohol at a function and held th license for that location, if all I sold was one beer for a nickel and nothing else, it would not matter if the other business made a billion dollars off of their tickets, food, souvenirs etc, the place would still be off-limits.

[Keith B]

Here is the license for the venue:

License #: MB418155
Trade Name: SPECTRUM
Owner: FACILITY CONCESSION SERVICES INC.
Location Address: 224 E HOUSTON STREET
SAN ANTONIO , TX 78205
Mailing Address: PO BOX 7130
THE WOODLANDS , TX 77387
County: Bexar Orig. Issue Date: 9/3/1997
Status: Current Exp. Date: 9/2/2013
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.: 2813630900 Gun Sign: RED
Subordinates: CB,LB,PE
Related To:

If you go here http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and search for owner FACILITY CONCESSION SERVICES INC you will find they are a concession vendor for a lot of places.

Bottom line, you may like to believe your conspiracy theory about the city figuring out how to prohibit CHL's from entering, but it all has to do with money and business management, not CHL's and guns.

[alphonso]

A good example would be if I contracted to sell alcohol at a function and held th license for that location, if all I sold was one beer for a nickel and nothing else, it would not matter if the other business made a billion dollars off of their tickets, food, souvenirs etc, the place would still be off-limits.

This is my point exactly. Why should the alcohol vendor at the function you mention above hold the license for the entire enterprise? If the other parts of the enterprise (tickets, food, souvenirs, etc) make much more money and are the primary purpose for the whole event, it seems much more sensible to me to have them hold the TABC license and classification.

[Keith B]

A good example would be if I contracted to sell alcohol at a function and held th license for that location, if all I sold was one beer for a nickel and nothing else, it would not matter if the other business made a billion dollars off of their tickets, food, souvenirs etc, the place would still be off-limits.

This is my point exactly. Why should the alcohol vendor at the function you mention above hold the license for the entire enterprise? If the other parts of the enterprise (tickets, food, souvenirs, etc) make much more money and are the primary purpose for the whole event, it seems much more sensible to me to have them hold the TABC license and classification.

Might be more sensible, but the law states that the company who sells the alcohol must hold the license. That is TABC administrative rules.

[srothstein]

It makes a lot more sense to me for the TABC to license the building red or blue based on the primary nature of the business--in this case an entertainment venue. To view the entertainment venue by an ancillary service that just happens to operate in the same building seems to me to have the tail wagging the dog.

The problem with this is the law does not allow it. The law refers to the licensee, which is the business getting the license, not the property or property owner. If the licensee makes more than 50% from alcohol sales, it is a red license. The business owner gets to decide how to structure the business. TABC only gets to answer the question of whether ot not the business makes 51% or not.

A hypothetical: If a restaurant that had both a bar and a dining area was owned by the city would they determine the 51/non 51% of the entire restaurant based only on the operation of the bar, or of the operations of the entire entity?
Would they create two different business, one for the bar and one for the kitchen, and put the whole operation under license through the bar? If they did, it would be contrary to how all other restaurants are determined to be red or blue.

This is actually covered deep in the TABC rules and laws. If the businesses are owned by the same person or group of people, they are considered the same business by TABC. If they are actually separate businesses, they get separate licenses. If not, then both get combined as one business for the purposes of the license. And TABC does investigate and file felony fraud charges for lying on applications about this.

So, if the city owned a building and wanted to contract out the services, they could build a restaurant and they could build a bar. Say this building is the Hemisfair tower and Jim's gets the contract for the restaurant at the top. Jim's does not want the license in their name. The city could contract out to a completely separate company, say to me, to operate a bar. The premises (the whole tower) would then be posted as a 51% location. But if Jim's created a separate company to run the bar portion, TABC would say it is all one company and it would not make the 51% rule.

The system could be manipulated to ban guns, if someone wanted to. But so far, I don't think anyone in San Antonio management is that smart. After all, they do allow the same contractor to serve food and alcohol in the tower, and they allow the same caterer that you are required to use to sell food and alcohol in the convention center. They would separate those if they were trying to ban guns, especially at the convention center (where they have tried by posting the old 30.05 signs).

[alphonso]

Sroth,

Very illuminating post. Thanks. I think I'm gonna have to go to law school to understand my CHL.

Do you happen to know how the SA Tower is posted?

[Keith B]

Sroth,

Very illuminating post. Thanks. I think I'm gonna have to go to law school to understand my CHL.

Do you happen to know how the SA Tower is posted?

There is one business at 701 Bowie St that is in the tower, Chart House Resturant, and it shows to have a blue sign. You can search for these yourself at http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bkjunk]

I know it's an old thread but I just got back from the Book of Mormon and the sign behind the bar is the blue sign "the unlicensed possession yada yada yada." There were several Gunbuster signs around but we know those don't count.

[MeMelYup]

Sroth,

Thanks for the informative answer. I think you have it right.

I spoke to the "manager" of the theater and he hardly knew a thing about the law, the theater's policies, or the signs that were/were not posted. When pressed, he finally told me that no guns were allowed to respect the wishes of the artists.

Sounds to me like putting the 51% on the whole place, which is as you know, owned by the city is just a slippery trick to abridge my 2nd amendment rights and cause me to walk around downtown unarmed.

The bowling alley analogy is helpful to understand the situation, but unless the bowling alley is city or state owned, not completely relevant.

City Owned buildings are NOT exempt from being off-limits with a 51% sign, just 30.06. TABC requires 51% sign if the premise is licensed as 51%, so that is one way a government building CAN be restricted and off-limits to a CHL.

This sounds like a loophole that needs to be plugged in 2015.

[Willy75075]

Why has nobody stated the obvious? How about trying to change the law to allow carrying in 51% establishments? AFAIK, no CHL holder has ever shot up a restaurant where carry is legal and they serve alcohol, so why would any of us shoot up a bar? Idaho allows this, and they have had no problems with it.

[MeMelYup]

Next legislative session we need to fix the 51% loophole. We need to be able to carry concealed everywhere a police officer can that is not a secure area.

[ScottDLS]

Next legislative session we need to fix the 51% loophole. We need to be able to carry concealed everywhere a police officer can that is not a secure area.

Yeah like properly posted 30.06 locations.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Sroth,

Thanks for the informative answer. I think you have it right.

I spoke to the "manager" of the theater and he hardly knew a thing about the law, the theater's policies, or the signs that were/were not posted. When pressed, he finally told me that no guns were allowed to respect the wishes of the artists.

Sounds to me like putting the 51% on the whole place, which is as you know, owned by the city is just a slippery trick to abridge my 2nd amendment rights and cause me to walk around downtown unarmed.

The bowling alley analogy is helpful to understand the situation, but unless the bowling alley is city or state owned, not completely relevant.

City Owned buildings are NOT exempt from being off-limits with a 51% sign, just 30.06. TABC requires 51% sign if the premise is licensed as 51%, so that is one way a government building CAN be restricted and off-limits to a CHL.

This sounds like a loophole that needs to be plugged in 2015.

You can't just put up a 51% sign because you feel like it though. A city building can't claim 51% if it doesn't actually make over 50% of it's profit on alcohol. If you see an improper 51, call the TABC.

[MONGOOSE]

Liars figure.....figures lie. I'm about ready to kick all the transplants out of Tx....a lot of liberal panty waists takin over