TexasCHLforum.com

I just wanted to share this bit of info. If you want to go to Wurstfest, the TABC Public Inquiry System shows that their license is for less-than-51% on-premises consumption. Carry away.


License #: BG188269

Trade Name: WURSTFEST ASSOCIATION OF NEW BRAUNFELS
Owner: WURSTFEST ASSOCIATION OF NEW BRAUNFELS
Location Address:
178 LANDA PARK DRIVE
NEW BRAUNFELS , TX 78130
Mailing Address:
PO BOX 310309
NEW BRAUNFELS , TX 781310309
County: Comal Orig. Issue Date: 10/25/1984
Status: Current Exp. Date: 10/24/2013
Wine Percent: 17
Location Phone No.: 8306259167 Gun Sign: BLUE
Subordinates:
Related To:

Great info. Thanks for sharing.

Just got back from the Wurstfest grounds. There is a 51% sign arrogantly posted at the gate, but the license is the only thing that counts. I just quietly and politely ignored it. No sense in raising a stink over it. I am tempted to file a complaint with the TABC about it, though.

I didn't see any 30.06 postings there.

Enjoy.

Good info Going today Thanks

Would you mind checking the status of that sign when you get there? A complaint form was filed earlier this week.

This year ('13) the sign is still the same as last year: (51%). The TABC public query site shows a gun license of Blue. I spoke with the Ex. Director of Wurstfest, she informed me that they were in compliance according to the local TABC officer. She also said that regardless of licensing they would not permit firearms on the grounds, (also that she didn't understand how you can walk down the street with a rifle - just showing her view).

I called TABC and was told they would speak with the local officer and contact me tomorrow.

My CHL instructor told me that even if Wurstfest is wrong, displaying a 51% sign demonstrates their intent to keep firearms off of the grounds.

My response to all of this is: I thought the entire purpose of the 30.06, red, and blue signs was to ensure that chl holders weren't guessing about intent or whether a business derived over 51% from alcohol sales.

dooditsme wrote:This year ('13) the sign is still the same as last year: (51%). The TABC public query site shows a gun license of Blue. I spoke with the Ex. Director of Wurstfest, she informed me that they were in compliance according to the local TABC officer. She also said that regardless of licensing they would not permit firearms on the grounds, (also that she didn't understand how you can walk down the street with a rifle - just showing her view).

I called TABC and was told they would speak with the local officer and contact me tomorrow.

My CHL instructor told me that even if Wurstfest is wrong, displaying a 51% sign demonstrates their intent to keep firearms off of the grounds.

My response to all of this is: I thought the entire purpose of the 30.06, red, and blue signs was to ensure that chl holders weren't guessing about intent or whether a business derived over 51% from alcohol sales.

Welcome to the forum.

30.06 is independent of a 51% or Unlicensed possession sign. A 30.06 is placed by a private property owner to prevent carry by a CHL holder. The signs are not enforceable on government property unless it is a location already statutorily off limits.

The unlicensed possession or 51% signs are required by TABC period. Really not directed at a CHL holder. However, a CHL holder must abide by a valid 51% sign and not carry there. Even the absence of the 51% sign at a 51% location, while a defense to prosecution, it is still an off -limits location.

As for intent, the 51% sign may be an attempt by the Wurstfest people to try and keep CHL's out, but it is more than likely an error and legally they MUST post the proper sign in accordance with their license (<51% or > 51%). And their intent does not serve as a valid notice to not carry. HOWEVER, not sure if Wurstfest is on public or private property, but if private, then the verbal notification you received from the Ex. Director IS valid notification and you cannot carry there. If public, then they cannot prevent you carrying.

I'm pretty sure the grounds are owned by the Wurstfest Assocation of New Braunfels, and hence private.

I noticed the sign hanging on the entry way but did not see a 51% subembossed on it. It spoke only of unlicensed possession of a firearm, IIRC.

I'll have a look next trip.

Years ago, I could see 51% of the revenue coming from beer sales. Now with admissions, the carnival, all the food and stuff, it seems less likely. Of course, $17 for a pitcher of Shiner Bock makes up for a lot of sausage on a stick and t-shirts!

Thanks for the welcome and the responses. Without hearing back from the TABC officer, this is what I'm forced to assume: The liquor license with a gun license code of blue is valid. Therefore they are displaying an incorrect sign. If the land used is private, they are still using an incorrect sign. From what I remember the land is leased from Landa Park which is not private land.

Knowing New Braunfels my concern/conspiracy theory is this: The Wurstfest Assoc. does not want firearms (legal or otherwise) on the property. Assuming it's not private property and since the TABC gun license is Blue, and assuming their statement about the local TABC officer assuring them they're in compliance, someone has given them a wink and a nod and let them display a Red sign (I make this assumption in review of previous posts dating back to 2011 with the same license granted and a Red sign displayed, even with complaints filed.). That is a theory, and I hope I'm wrong.

I asked a friend to take a pic of the Red sign this year just to be sure, but I think he got distracted by pork chops.

I've made a lot of assumptions here, I realize that. I'm confident in my logic about the first paragraph, the second is supposition. I hope TABC returns my call and clears that up. If so, I'll post it on here.

Again, thanks for the welcome and the responses.

A question for the group slightly off topic. Went to a charity dinner over the weekend and they had a bar set up ( for pay bar) far away from the entrance and they had a 51% sign. No sign at the door and the 51% sign was a paper print taped to the wall. I was not carrying anyhow as I was going to partake in the beer but I thought to myself what the legality of carry would be since there was no sign at the door, only next to the bar set up.

rotor wrote:but I thought to myself what the legality of carry would be since there was no sign at the door, only next to the bar set up

the sign does not need to be next to the door, however I wish that was the rule!

I have been in places where you just 'knew' it should be 51%, but had to search and search and search, and sometimes it took me 3 or 4 visits - literally - to the location to finally see the sign.

So, once you see it, you are notified and if you are carrying, you need to go disarm.

rotor wrote:A question for the group slightly off topic. Went to a charity dinner over the weekend and they had a bar set up ( for pay bar) far away from the entrance and they had a 51% sign. No sign at the door and the 51% sign was a paper print taped to the wall. I was not carrying anyhow as I was going to partake in the beer but I thought to myself what the legality of carry would be since there was no sign at the door, only next to the bar set up.

Below is the answer I received from TABC when I asked about a similar situation. If the bar operator was NOT at their permanent location I imagine the same would apply.

For question #2, a temporary permit was issued for that function and a
blue sign should have been posted. XXXXXXXXX itself is required
to have (51%) signs posted at its permanent licensed location. However,
411.204 of the government code, doesn't require temporary permits to
have 51% signs posted, only the blue sign is required, regardless of
sales. We will remind our temporary applicants that only the blue sign
is required.

JALLEN wrote:I'm pretty sure the grounds are owned by the Wurstfest Assocation of New Braunfels, and hence private.

I noticed the sign hanging on the entry way but did not see a 51% subembossed on it. It spoke only of unlicensed possession of a firearm, IIRC.

I'll have a look next trip.

Years ago, I could see 51% of the revenue coming from beer sales. Now with admissions, the carnival, all the food and stuff, it seems less likely. Of course, $17 for a pitcher of Shiner Bock makes up for a lot of sausage on a stick and t-shirts!

According to Comal Appraisal District, the wurstfest has personal property, the land is city owned so no they may not restrict CHL's

JP171 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:I'm pretty sure the grounds are owned by the Wurstfest Assocation of New Braunfels, and hence private.

I noticed the sign hanging on the entry way but did not see a 51% subembossed on it. It spoke only of unlicensed possession of a firearm, IIRC.

I'll have a look next trip.

Years ago, I could see 51% of the revenue coming from beer sales. Now with admissions, the carnival, all the food and stuff, it seems less likely. Of course, $17 for a pitcher of Shiner Bock makes up for a lot of sausage on a stick and t-shirts!

According to Comal Appraisal District, the wurstfest has personal property, the land is city owned so no they may not restrict CHL's

Here is what the Wurstfest site says:

WURSTFEST broke in a new site in ’67 … half of the present Wursthalle … and attendance jumped to 40,000. In ’68, the entire Wursthalle, having approximately 33,000 square feet and seats for over 2,000 people, was leased in time for 56,000 visitors in the expanded ten-day run.

and

1978 was a benchmark year with the purchase of the Dittlinger Feed Mill property, and a sub-lease on a portion of the LCRA property. This tripled the size of the WURSTFEST grounds and entertainment area for the visitors.

http://wurstfest.com/history/

Now it doesn't say who purchased it exactly. Ownership has a great many implications and ramifications. The city owning it and leasing it to the Wurst Association might be a possibility. So, we have to investigate it maybe.

JAllen, the appraisal district lists ONLY personal business property at that address for the wurstfest and all real property owned by the city, that seems pretty explanatory to me, no matter who built the building the City of New Braunfels owns the building and property so that makes it as is said awww darn I'll carry if I want to, the investigation is done. as a matter of fact the Comal appraisal district show only personal business property under the whole ownership of Wurstfest anywhere in the county. I really don't care what wurstfest says, same as the Museum of natural science in Houston and may other venues that administrate places for the city, the management may be by someone else but the city/county owns it then it cannot be enforced even if posted