TexasCHLforum.com

Sorry, but if you see my post in the other thread, you will see my logic and explanation. I no longer have access to the legal references I did when I was an active officer and instructor, so I don't have the citations any more. Hopefully the explanation is clear enough to help.

I believe the laws on private clubs do not require membership for entry into the premises, just for purchase of the drinks. Many places charge two extra dollars for the first drink to cover a temporary guest membership to get around this law. One of my complaints about the way we regulate alcohol in Texas is that we still permit this type of game. Either make regular licenses legal or do away with guest and temporary memberships.

I support the local option on selling alcohol. But it should be given just three options, IMO. We should have dry counties, allow alcohol for off premise consumption, or allow alcohol for on premise consumption. I do not understand what the difference in selling beer, wine, or liquor is, nor the difference in the type of establishment that sells it.

It depends on the violation, like any other code. There are some misdemeanors and some felonies in there.

CainA wrote:

srothstein wrote: Actually, the parking lot is part of the licensed premises and this is where quite a bit of the case law on weapons on licensed premises comes from. But, the non-chl would not be committing a crime because the law allows guns in cars. For non-51% locations, the law on licensed premises is still part of 46.02 and we know that allows car carry now. The non-chl is not affected by 46.035 since he cannot carry outside of the car anyway.

I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if this has come up.

What if the licensed premises share's or has a common parking lot with some other (non licensed) business(es), does that whole parking lot become off limits then?

This is a really gray area of the law. As far as I know, it depends on whether the businesses have separate addresses or all one address. If there are separate addresses, like a strip mall, the part of the parking lot that would be in front of the bar (or alongside it if it is the corner store) would be part of the licensed premise. Of course, the parking lot could be marked off the license if they applied with it drawn that way. This is common for businesses that have one address, like a mall.

And while it was pointed out that the gun was legal in the car, even if it was a 51% location, there is one possible time that this could bite you. If there is a bar in a strip center, the parking lot might be included in the license. If you happened to park in front of the bar and then get out of the car to go to the dry cleaner next door while still carrying your pistol, you would be technically in violation of the law. It is one of the cases where it is highly unlikely to ever come up, but it should be noted, just in case.

Keith B wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

srothstein wrote:The legal question that will need to be settled by the court is if the key word in the Penal Code is "premises" or if it is the phrase "licensed premises". If premises is the definition, you can carry on the patio. If the phrase "licensed premises" takes premises, you cannot carry in the parking lot or on the patio or anywhere else covered by the license.

Does that mean someone without a CHL would be committing a felony if they have a gun in their car at a convenience store that includes the parking lot in the TABC premises?

No. Convenience stores are not licensed for on-premise consumption, so the parking lot would not be part of the licensed premise. An unlicensed person carrying a pistol into a convenience store would be illegal and the penalty is higher for carrying into a place that is licensed to sell alcohol for off-premise consumption.

In the case of a 51% location licensed for on-premise consumption, I would also think that the parking lot would not be part of the licensed premise, although it could be if it were set up to do a lot of parking lot concerts, parties, etc. Just a regular bar parking lot would normally not be part of the licensed premise though.

Actually, the parking lot is part of the licensed premises and this is where quite a bit of the case law on weapons on licensed premises comes from. But, the non-chl would not be committing a crime because the law allows guns in cars. For non-51% locations, the law on licensed premises is still part of 46.02 and we know that allows car carry now. The non-chl is not affected by 46.035 since he cannot carry outside of the car anyway.

This is truly a gray area of the law that I cannot say how the courts will rule. The problem is that the two different codes involved (Alcoholic Beverage Code and Penal Code) each define premises differently. The Penal Code clearly defines premises as inside the building, as we all know with schools. But the Alcoholic beverage Code defines the licensed premises as the grounds and all buildings and appurtenances, including the adjacent premises if they are controlled by the same person.

The legal question that will need to be settled by the court is if the key word in the Penal Code is "premises" or if it is the phrase "licensed premises". If premises is the definition, you can carry on the patio. If the phrase "licensed premises" takes premises, you cannot carry in the parking lot or on the patio or anywhere else covered by the license.

Where it gets really tricky on this is that the old court precedents use the Alcoholic Beverage Code as the presiding definition. But they all predate the CHL laws being written, so I don't know how reliable they are. This is a case where the courts can go either way.

I recommend not carrying anywhere on the grounds of a licensed premise with a 51% sign, but others have disagreed and said the Penal Code will take over. I can certainly see their arguments.