No 51% sign in a 51% establishment...

[Reds45ACP]

I'd like to notify someone about a missing 51% sign at an establishment that shows a "Red Sign" on the TABC website. TABC doesn't list improper signage as a reason for complaint so I can't go that route. Anyone know someone that works there or anything similar?

Thanks in advance.

[Wes]

Just email or call them, it is a valid complaint as it is a violation of the tabc code/rules

complaints@tabc.state.tx.us

1-888-THE-TABC

[bizarrenormality]

You could but what's the benefit to getting rid of a defense to prosecution?

[Keith B]

You could but what's the benefit to getting rid of a defense to prosecution?

Because it is only a defense to prosecution, not an exception. You can still be charged and taken to court and then you will have to prove you didn't know it wasn't a 51% location. Better to know it is with a 51% sign and then not carry or maybe not even go there.

[RossA]

It's not my duty to post signs for businesses, or to do homework to figure out if a business should be posting. I don't see a sign, I carry.

[Keith B]

It's not my duty to post signs for businesses, or to do homework to figure out if a business should be posting. I don't see a sign, I carry.

In this case, it would be a matter of taking the ride and then beating the rap.

[LordProphet]

Where do you guys find out if they're a 51% or not? I looked on the TABC website but that place is a mess.

[rotor]

Where do you guys find out if they're a 51% or not? I looked on the TABC website but that place is a mess.

There is an app. TABC mobile for iphone, probably for android as well.

[Abraham]

Coulda fooled me.

I'm under the impression if it's a bar selling booze for immediate consumption or a parallel - you can't carry.

Or, am I being too simplistic?

Thus, I'm not bothered by no 51% sign as I pretty certain my above regarding gin mills is on the money.

Of course, it's a moot point for me as I don't go to bars.

[Teamless]

Coulda fooled me.

I'm under the impression if it's a bar selling booze for immediate consumption or a parallel - you can't carry.

Or, am I being too simplistic?

Thus, I'm not bothered by no 51% sign as I pretty certain my above regarding gin mills is on the money.

Of course, it's a moot point for me as I don't go to bars.

Depends on what TABC considers it.
If 51% of their revenue comes from sale of alcohol for 'on premises' consumption, then it is 51% and prohibited.
But if you go to some places which may be a "Bar", they may not be 51% and thus you could technically carry legally.
Example of this: Bar Louie (Baybrook Mall location) is "Gun Sign = Blue" even though their name is "Bar" Louie.
Other Bar Louie's are "Gun Sign = Red"

Chili's, TGI Friday's are 2 other examples.
They both have a bar in them, but you can legally carry

Legal carry above means they have not also posted 3006, 3007 of course.

[C-dub]

Coulda fooled me.

I'm under the impression if it's a bar selling booze for immediate consumption or a parallel - you can't carry.

Or, am I being too simplistic?

Thus, I'm not bothered by no 51% sign as I pretty certain my above regarding gin mills is on the money.

Of course, it's a moot point for me as I don't go to bars.

I don’t think you’re being too simplistic. You’re just doing it the easy way.

[skeathley]

If it is clearly a bar, I would not want to try to explain to a LEO that, although I took the LTC course, I somehow don't know that carry in a bar is illegal. Even if you beat the rap, expect to get the ride.

However, no charge for transportation.

[ScottDLS]

You could but what's the benefit to getting rid of a defense to prosecution?

Because it is only a defense to prosecution, not an exception. You can still be charged and taken to court and then you will have to prove you didn't know it wasn't a 51% location. Better to know it is with a 51% sign and then not carry or maybe not even go there.

As are all the 46.15 non-applicability provisions like: Having LTC, being a LEO, engaged in sporting activity, traveling, etc. All of these are defenses to prosecution rather than exceptions. Defenses, exceptions, not being illegal, etc. are all just different shades of the "burden of proof" under the penal code. My contention is that it is incorrect to say that "something is illegal, but you have a defense or an exception". It's more that the prosecution has a different level of effort to prove you are guilty of something for which you have a Defense, Affirmative Defense or Exception. The act itself wasn't illegal if you had the Defense at the time you committed it.

And if you are prosecuted for something for which you had a Defense, the PROSECUTION must refute your Defense BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT as long as you bring it up. I'm still waiting for some LEO to be the test case for carrying "while being a cop"...which is only a Defense.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.2.htm

[Keith B]

You could but what's the benefit to getting rid of a defense to prosecution?

Because it is only a defense to prosecution, not an exception. You can still be charged and taken to court and then you will have to prove you didn't know it wasn't a 51% location. Better to know it is with a 51% sign and then not carry or maybe not even go there.

As are all the 46.15 non-applicability provisions like: Having LTC, being a LEO, engaged in sporting activity, traveling, etc. All of these are defenses to prosecution rather than exceptions. Defenses, exceptions, not being illegal, etc. are all just different shades of the "burden of proof" under the penal code. My contention is that it is incorrect to say that "something is illegal, but you have a defense or an exception". It's more that the prosecution has a different level of effort to prove you are guilty of something for which you have a Defense, Affirmative Defense or Exception. The act itself wasn't illegal if you had the Defense at the time you committed it.

And if you are prosecuted for something for which you had a Defense, the PROSECUTION must refute your Defense BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT as long as you bring it up. I'm still waiting for some LEO to be the test case for carrying "while being a cop"...which is only a Defense.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.2.htm

I agree it shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution, but if it did not apply to vs. the defense to prosecution it would be better. If some overzealous junior prosecutor wants to push they could still drag you through court. If it is an exception then they really would have nothing to charge you with.

[apostate]

I would not want to try to explain to a LEO that, although I took the LTC course, I somehow don't know that carry in a bar is illegal.

Having taken the class, I know a 51% establishment is required to post a specific sign. Absent such a sign, a reasonable man might believe an establishment is not off limits, rather than assuming the management are breaking the law.