How to check if a premise is 51%?

[jmorris]

I'm trying to find out if a location has a red or blue...But for some reason the site will not work for me. Can someone check?

Name: Josabi's
Address: 17200 State Highway 16 N, Helotes TX 78023

Does the site work for anyone else?

Direct link for TABC license lookup

They don't have an FB license, so we can't tell from the TABC website if they are 51% or not.

License #: MB680713
Trade Name: JOSABI'S
Owner: JOSABI'S INC.
Location Address: 17200-01 HWY 16 NORTH
HELOTES , TX 780233442
County: BEXAR Orig. Issue Date: 1/11/2008
Status: Current Exp. Date: 1/10/2011
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.: 5122976185
Subordinates: LB
Related To:

When I run that I get:

License #: MB680713

Trade Name: JOSABI'S
Owner: JOSABI'S INC.
Location Address:
17200-01 HWY 16 NORTH
HELOTES , TX 780233442
Mailing Address:
14310 AUBERRY DR
HELOTES , TX 780232631
County: Bexar Orig. Issue Date: 1/11/2008
Status: Current Exp. Date: 1/10/2019
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.: 2103729100
Subordinates: LB
Related To: Gun Sign: RED <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<51%

[jmorris]

BTW,, the Android app does not give the full data as above but does have a "Red Gun Sign Required" line.

[Strongbad]

I've found almost no places that have tables to serve food to be 51%. LIterally, over the last 12 years of carrying, I look all the time and if they serve food as a restaurant, they're not 51%. Even a lot of places that you'd think would bel because they focus on alcohol like BJ's Brewery, etc.

One exception is The Flying Saucer. They have tables and serve food, but are 51%.

The iPhone App is very handy.

Breastaurants are often 51%. Ojos Locos and Redneck Heaven for example are both red sign establishments. I dunno if I believe it but according to the TABC site they are.

[Keith B]

I've found almost no places that have tables to serve food to be 51%. LIterally, over the last 12 years of carrying, I look all the time and if they serve food as a restaurant, they're not 51%. Even a lot of places that you'd think would bel because they focus on alcohol like BJ's Brewery, etc.

One exception is The Flying Saucer. They have tables and serve food, but are 51%.

The iPhone App is very handy.

Breastaurants are often 51%. Ojos Locos and Redneck Heaven for example are both red sign establishments. I dunno if I believe it but according to the TABC site they are.

It all depends on the location. A couple of the Redneck Heaven locations are red, and the other two are blue. TABC bases their requirement on actual sales receipts, so if a business is right on the border of 50/50 food/alcohol, then one location could tip the scales one way while another may slide the other.

[Nutcracker]

I've found almost no places that have tables to serve food to be 51%. LIterally, over the last 12 years of carrying, I look all the time and if they serve food as a restaurant, they're not 51%. Even a lot of places that you'd think would bel because they focus on alcohol like BJ's Brewery, etc.

One exception is The Flying Saucer. They have tables and serve food, but are 51%.

The iPhone App is very handy.

Breastaurants are often 51%. Ojos Locos and Redneck Heaven for example are both red sign establishments. I dunno if I believe it but according to the TABC site they are.

It all depends on the location. A couple of the Redneck Heaven locations are red, and the other two are blue. TABC bases their requirement on actual sales receipts, so if a business is right on the border of 50/50 food/alcohol, then one location could tip the scales one way while another may slide the other.

Whether they really are 51% or not, the TABC license determines if it's legal for the good guys to carry there. Well, legal to carry handguns, since carrying a rifle or a shotgun is not a crime in 51% establishments. So that's what I do.

[Keith B]

Whether they really are 51% or not, the TABC license determines if it's legal for the good guys to carry there. Well, legal to carry handguns, since carrying a rifle or a shotgun is not a crime in 51% establishments. So that's what I do.

I sure hope you are not carrying a rifle or shotgun into a 51% location, as that is a felony to carry a weapon (not handgun) into one.



Also, carrying an unlicensed weapon, meaning one that you can't get a license to carry (handgun), in a non-51% location is also a felony per TABC, but really it's a crime if they allow you to stay on premise with one.

[Nutcracker]

Whether they really are 51% or not, the TABC license determines if it's legal for the good guys to carry there. Well, legal to carry handguns, since carrying a rifle or a shotgun is not a crime in 51% establishments. So that's what I do.

I sure hope you are not carrying a rifle or shotgun into a 51% location, as that is a felony to carry a weapon (not handgun) into one.

Where does the penal code say that? Please quote chapter and verse of an actual law. Recent posts on this forum show Texas DPS and LTC Instructors don't always teach the actual law.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Keith B]

Whether they really are 51% or not, the TABC license determines if it's legal for the good guys to carry there. Well, legal to carry handguns, since carrying a rifle or a shotgun is not a crime in 51% establishments. So that's what I do.

I sure hope you are not carrying a rifle or shotgun into a 51% location, as that is a felony to carry a weapon (not handgun) into one.

Where does the penal code say that? Please quote chapter and verse of an actual law. Recent posts on this forum show Texas DPS and LTC Instructors don't always teach the actual law.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Well, I do:

Section 46 of the penal code does not cover anything but a handgun when it comes to firearms being carried into an establishment that sells or serves alcohol. However, you are in violation of penal code 30.05

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
..........
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:
..........
(C) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

So, I stand partially corrected that it is not a felony, but is a Class A misdemeanor, to carry into the location with the signs present stating no weapons.

[spectre]

Whether they really are 51% or not, the TABC license determines if it's legal for the good guys to carry there. Well, legal to carry handguns, since carrying a rifle or a shotgun is not a crime in 51% establishments. So that's what I do.

I sure hope you are not carrying a rifle or shotgun into a 51% location, as that is a felony to carry a weapon (not handgun) into one.

Where does the penal code say that? Please quote chapter and verse of an actual law. Recent posts on this forum show Texas DPS and LTC Instructors don't always teach the actual law.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Well, I do:

Section 46 of the penal code does not cover anything but a handgun when it comes to firearms being carried into an establishment that sells or serves alcohol. However, you are in violation of penal code 30.05

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
..........
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:
..........
(C) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

So, I stand partially corrected that it is not a felony, but is a Class A misdemeanor, to carry into the location with the signs present stating no weapons.

I don't follow how it's a misdemeanor to have a rifle in a 51% location.

The signs don't say weapons are prohibited there. They say the unlicensed possession of a weapon is a felony. However, it's NOT a felony to carry a rifle there. So either the signs don't apply to riflemen, or the sign is a lie. Either way, the signs aren't notice that entry with a rifle is prohibited, so 30.05 doesn't apply.

[Keith B]

Well, I do:

Section 46 of the penal code does not cover anything but a handgun when it comes to firearms being carried into an establishment that sells or serves alcohol. However, you are in violation of penal code 30.05

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
..........
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:
..........
(C) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

So, I stand partially corrected that it is not a felony, but is a Class A misdemeanor, to carry into the location with the signs present stating no weapons.

I don't follow how it's a misdemeanor to have a rifle in a 51% location.

The signs don't say weapons are prohibited there. They say the unlicensed possession of a weapon is a felony. However, it's NOT a felony to carry a rifle there. So either the signs don't apply to riflemen, or the sign is a lie. Either way, the signs aren't notice that entry with a rifle is prohibited, so 30.05 doesn't apply.

Well, there are two different versions of the 51% sign. One says weapon and one says handgun. If handgun, then no offense unless you are notified to leave with your rifle, then you are in violation of 30.05. The Unlicensed possession sign says weapon.

If the sign says weapon, then see my post above. 30.05 says if you received notice via the sign that weapons were not allowed (whether is says felony or not), then you are in violation by carrying a deadly weapon (defined in TPC 1.07(17)(A) http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/ ... -1-07.html) past the sign. That is a class A misdemeanor.

[spectre]

The signs don't say weapons aren't allowed. They say the unlicensed possession of a weapon is a felony.

Obviously, the signs don't apply to an AR15, a Kershaw Blur, or a small OC canister. Why? Because carrying those weapons in that location isn't a felony.

P.S. I'm in Texas.

[Keith B]

The signs don't say weapons aren't allowed. They say the unlicensed possession of a weapon is a felony.

Obviously, the signs don't apply to an AR15, a Kershaw Blur, or a small OC canister. Why? Because carrying those weapons in that location isn't a felony.

P.S. I'm in Texas.

A rifle (firearm) is an unlicensed weapon, as is a Kershaw Blur (knife). A small OC canister is not a weapon as it is specifically exempted in TPC 46.01(14):

(14) "Chemical dispensing device" means a device, other than a small chemical dispenser sold commercially for personal protection, that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of dispensing a substance capable of causing an adverse psychological or physiological effect on a human being.

And while not a felony, the sign is notice that (unlicensed) weapons are not allowed, so it is a violation of 30.05 and a misdemeanor. Don't care what the sign states the penalty is, as that does not make the sign invalid as there is no legally defined specific verbiage requirements for the TABC signs, just a general requirement.

[thetexan]

....
While you are technically correct, one thing to remember is this is a 'defense to prosecution', but not a guarantee you won't be prosecuted. For example, if the prosecutor can convince the Judge or Jury that you well knew it was a 51% location when you entered, even without the sign, then you could be in hot water and be convicted of carrying in a 51% establishment.

So, I would still be very cautious if you suspicion an establishment is 51% even without the sign unless you have proof it is not.

Two points.

First. Charles Cotton has said in a previous post that by case law all the 46.15 Non-Applicability Provisions are considered a "Defense to Prosecution" vs. an exception to the law. That means carrying at all with a CHL or even carry by a Peace Officer is a "only" Defense to Prosecution.

Second. The Defense provided under 46.035 can't be negated by proving that you "knew" it was a 51% location. The Defense is that you were not given effective notice under section GC 411.204 (by posting of a 51% sign). If you present evidence of your Defense at trial, the prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the Defense didn't exist.

There is an interesting sideline to this the defense of improper notification.

It seems intuitive that the reason for specific rules for notification is to ensure the end result of you actually being in a state of knowledge of the thing that the notification is intended to convey. In other words, the purpose of .204 is to ensure you know about the 51% status of the establishment you are about to enter.

Why do this? It also seems obvious the the point of making this ensurance is to allow you to effective comply with the prohibition in 46.035. Now, if this is true...it follows that if a prosecutor can prove that you were already in a state of knowledge of the 51% status of the business then the violation of 46.035 was committed while in that state of knowledge. This might negate the defense offered in .204.

Again, the defense to prosecution in .204 is that you were not informed. But if you were in fact informed already and that can be proven then the question becomes, "did you or did you not know that you were violating 46.035 at the time. The fact that notification is required in .204 implies that failure to notify gives you a defense. The reverse implication is that if one is already informed, that the foreknowledge implied in .204 requires is essentially present and the defense offered therein is non-effectual.

In fact, this might be applicable in any situation where there is a requirement of notification such as 30.05, .06, and .07...and any other statutes where there is notification required in any code.

This would explain why a judge might not accept a defensive argument "I'm not guilty because I wasn't notified properly" even though it was PROVEN that the defendant actually knew.

This is the difference between defense to prosecution and exception to prosecution or affirmative defense to prosecution.

tex

[kw5kw]

...Why do this? It also seems obvious the the point of making this endurance is to allow you to effective comply with the prohibition in 46.035. Now, if this is true...it follows that if a prosecutor can prove that you were already in a state of knowledge of the 51% status of the business then the violation of 46.035 was committed while in that state of knowledge. This might negate the defense offered in .204.

Again, the defense to prosecution in .204 is that you were not informed. But if you were in fact informed already and that can be proven then the question becomes, "did you or did you not know that you were violating 46.035 at the time. The fact that notification is required in .204 implies that failure to notify gives you a defense. The reverse implication is that if one is already informed, that the foreknowledge implied in .204 requires is essentially present and the defense offered therein is non-effectual.

In fact, this might be applicable in any situation where there is a requirement of notification such as 30.05, .06, and .07...and any other statutes where there is notification required in any code.

This would explain why a judge might not accept a defensive argument "I'm not guilty because I wasn't notified properly" even though it was PROVEN that the defendant actually knew.

This is the difference between defense to prosecution and exception to prosecution or affirmative defense to prosecution.

tex

So, might I ask, would having such apps as mentioned here or the 30.06 app on your phone be argued that you had prior knowledge of signage before hand and could be used against you if you were carrying concealed past a 30.06 sign. If so, I would propose not having such an app on your cell phone but on, say a tablet, that you could look at before your travels. I want to know but don't want to provide LEO/Prosecutor ammo to use against me. CYA as they say!

[thetexan]

...Why do this? It also seems obvious the the point of making this endurance is to allow you to effective comply with the prohibition in 46.035. Now, if this is true...it follows that if a prosecutor can prove that you were already in a state of knowledge of the 51% status of the business then the violation of 46.035 was committed while in that state of knowledge. This might negate the defense offered in .204.

Again, the defense to prosecution in .204 is that you were not informed. But if you were in fact informed already and that can be proven then the question becomes, "did you or did you not know that you were violating 46.035 at the time. The fact that notification is required in .204 implies that failure to notify gives you a defense. The reverse implication is that if one is already informed, that the foreknowledge implied in .204 requires is essentially present and the defense offered therein is non-effectual.

In fact, this might be applicable in any situation where there is a requirement of notification such as 30.05, .06, and .07...and any other statutes where there is notification required in any code.

This would explain why a judge might not accept a defensive argument "I'm not guilty because I wasn't notified properly" even though it was PROVEN that the defendant actually knew.

This is the difference between defense to prosecution and exception to prosecution or affirmative defense to prosecution.

tex

So, might I ask, would having such apps as mentioned here or the 30.06 app on your phone be argued that you had prior knowledge of signage before hand and could be used against you if you were carrying concealed past a 30.06 sign. If so, I would propose not having such an app on your cell phone but on, say a tablet, that you could look at before your travels. I want to know but don't want to provide LEO/Prosecutor ammo to use against me. CYA as they say!

It might indeed.

A prosecutor will pull every trick out of his hat. He might subpoena your emails to a friend where you discuss the presence of those signs.

I have always said that one should be careful of what one lets known about what he knows.

The discretion that a trial court has in applying interpretations to statutes opens up the ambiguities that require an appellate court to untangle.

So if one intends on the strict interpretation of the rules should not give any ammunition to the prosecutor by giving evidence of your knowledge of a notification.

tex