TexasCHLforum.com

Sherwood Forrest in McDade has 51% signs by the entrance. 1) They are expired. 2) They are black, not red. 3) Sherwood forest is not a building at all, but open grounds (I've been told that 51% only applies to a (1) building, not an open area). 4) If you look up the license on TABC it doesn't say sherwood forest is the owner. It says the owner is "RENAISSANCE BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC". If you Google who that is, it is a beverage import / export llc. based out of Florida, and does not have a TX office according to the web site. Something does not add up here. I've looked all over the Sherwood Forrest web site and don't see any reference to ren fair bev co. So, should they be reported?

TABC Liscense: BG742408
TABC Liscence search page: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ren. bev. co. website: http://renaissancebeverage.com/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sherwood forest website: http://www.sherwoodforestfaire.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

corbmonster wrote:Sherwood Forrest in McDade has 51% signs by the entrance. 1) They are expired. 2) They are black, not red. 3) Sherwood forest is not a building at all, but open grounds (I've been told that 51% only applies to a (1) building, not an open area). 4) If you look up the license on TABC it doesn't say sherwood forest is the owner. It says the owner is "RENAISSANCE BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC". If you Google who that is, it is a beverage import / export llc. based out of Florida, and does not have a TX office according to the web site. Something does not add up here. I've looked all over the Sherwood Forrest web site and don't see any reference to ren fair bev co. So, should they be reported?

TABC Liscense: BG742408
TABC Liscence search page: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ren. bev. co. website: http://renaissancebeverage.com/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sherwood forest website: http://www.sherwoodforestfaire.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go ahead and report them. It is important that events are properly posted.

corbmonster wrote:Sherwood Forrest in McDade has 51% signs by the entrance. 1) They are expired. 2) They are black, not red. 3) Sherwood forest is not a building at all, but open grounds (I've been told that 51% only applies to a (1) building, not an open area). 4) If you look up the license on TABC it doesn't say sherwood forest is the owner. It says the owner is "RENAISSANCE BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC". If you Google who that is, it is a beverage import / export llc. based out of Florida, and does not have a TX office according to the web site. Something does not add up here. I've looked all over the Sherwood Forrest web site and don't see any reference to ren fair bev co. So, should they be reported?

TABC Liscense: BG742408
TABC Liscence search page: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ren. bev. co. website: http://renaissancebeverage.com/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sherwood forest website: http://www.sherwoodforestfaire.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

51% signs don't expire. ??????

If you look up the license it says the exp date is 2/18/2014. And it is pending renewal.

I'm pretty sure the company holding the TABC license doesn't have to be the same as the company running the event but if they were selling alcohol after 2/18/2014 you can report them to TABC for that if it bothers you.

Well it's the principle that they are trying to disenfranchise and shut out perfectly fine law abiding citizens. That's what bothers me.

corbmonster wrote:Well it's the principle that they are trying to disenfranchise and shut out perfectly fine law abiding citizens. That's what bothers me.

The 2/3 majority in the legislature are the ones doing that.

According to the TABC website, the licensee was required to post the 51% sign while their license was valid. Presumably the same holds true if they're selling legally under some sort of extension during renewal, but I'm no revenooer man.

Is the TABC the issuing authority for the 51% sign? Or should I be notifying anyone else?

TABC issued the WINE AND BEER RETAILER'S PERMIT (BG) for that location so you can complain to them. https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/enforcemen ... cation.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The search result for BG742408 says "Gun Sign: RED" so if that's accurate, the retailer has no choice legally. If they're operating under that permit they are required by law to post the 51% sign.

You can thank the "pro gun" majority in the legislature for it being off limits to CHL but not off duty LEO.

corbmonster wrote:If you look up the license it says the exp date is 2/18/2014. And it is pending renewal.

So the license expired, not the 51% sign. The license will tell you if it is sign=red or sign = blue

corbmonster wrote:Well it's the principle that they are trying to disenfranchise and shut out perfectly fine law abiding citizens. That's what bothers me.

Disenfranchise? No law prevents you from carrying past a 51% sign.

Clearly, I don't understand how the legality of this works. And thanks to everyone for being patient and educating me. Why would the TABC force them to display the signs? As far as red signs of not, I'm going off eyewitnesses saying the signs are not red. I could see the argument for the grounds, if they were the only retailer there, but they are'nt. There are multiple vendors selling many different things and because a couple vendors happen to sell alcohol, the "whole facility" is labeled as 51%?!? Shouldn't the vendors selling alcohol have the signs for their locations?

corbmonster wrote:Clearly, I don't understand how the legality of this works. And thanks to everyone for being patient and educating me. Why would the TABC force them to display the signs?

The legislature passed laws requiring certain signs in certain places that sell alcohol, like the pregnancy sign I see in the men's washroom at restaurants.

TABC administers and enforces the alcohol laws. Here's their page about signs. https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

corbmonster wrote:Sherwood Forrest in McDade has 51% signs by the entrance. 1) They are expired. 2) They are black, not red. 3) Sherwood forest is not a building at all, but open grounds (I've been told that 51% only applies to a (1) building, not an open area). 4) If you look up the license on TABC it doesn't say sherwood forest is the owner. It says the owner is "RENAISSANCE BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC". If you Google who that is, it is a beverage import / export llc. based out of Florida, and does not have a TX office according to the web site. Something does not add up here. I've looked all over the Sherwood Forrest web site and don't see any reference to ren fair bev co. So, should they be reported?

TABC Liscense: BG742408
TABC Liscence search page: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ren. bev. co. website: http://renaissancebeverage.com/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sherwood forest website: http://www.sherwoodforestfaire.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The link you quoted is for Renaissance Beverage Importers out of Florida, not Renaissance Beverage, LLC http://www.linkedin.com/company/renaiss ... ompany-llc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the expired license, it is very possible they have applied for and received a renewal and the database has not been updated.

And as for 'disenfranchising', it is very common for a concession company to be formed separately from the main venue. Bass Hall and the Kimbal Art Museum in Fort Worth are just a couple of examples where the concessionaire is separate and due to the level of alcohol revenue the license issued is RED and makes the whole place off limits to carry.

And as stated above, for the liquor license it includes buildings, grounds and parking lots if the license holder requested patrons to be able to drink in those locations when applying for the license.

In the case of this location because of the way the license holder is separate from the main company they have no choice but to put up the 51% sign. I would report them for having an all black sign though if the large 51% is not in red.

Keith B wrote:

corbmonster wrote:Sherwood Forrest in McDade has 51% signs by the entrance. 1) They are expired. 2) They are black, not red. 3) Sherwood forest is not a building at all, but open grounds (I've been told that 51% only applies to a (1) building, not an open area). 4) If you look up the license on TABC it doesn't say sherwood forest is the owner. It says the owner is "RENAISSANCE BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC". If you Google who that is, it is a beverage import / export llc. based out of Florida, and does not have a TX office according to the web site. Something does not add up here. I've looked all over the Sherwood Forrest web site and don't see any reference to ren fair bev co. So, should they be reported?

TABC Liscense: BG742408
TABC Liscence search page: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ren. bev. co. website: http://renaissancebeverage.com/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sherwood forest website: http://www.sherwoodforestfaire.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The link you quoted is for Renaissance Beverage Importers out of Florida, not Renaissance Beverage, LLC http://www.linkedin.com/company/renaiss ... ompany-llc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the expired license, it is very possible they have applied for and received a renewal and the database has not been updated.

And as for 'disenfranchising', it is very common for a concession company to be formed separately from the main venue. Bass Hall and the Kimbal Art Museum in Fort Worth are just a couple of examples where the concessionaire is separate and due to the level of alcohol revenue the license issued is RED and makes the whole place off limits to carry.

And as stated above, for the liquor license it includes buildings, grounds and parking lots if the license holder requested patrons to be able to drink in those locations when applying for the license.

In the case of this location because of the way the license holder is separate from the main company they have no choice but to put up the 51% sign. I would report them for having an all black sign though if the large 51% is not in red.

Excellent description.... Just for an interesting point I'd point out the violation for carrying at a 51% location is only for the premises. Penal code 46.035. Even if the Grounds are licensed, the only violation for a CHL holder is only when on the premises. 46.035 defines premises as a building or portion of a building. (Keith, I realize you know that, I state it more for the OP)