TexasCHLforum.com

I agree with your understanding of the law and see where we disagree. You are arguing the actual law as it is written. I am pointing out what the courts might do if the case was brought to them.

There is a legal philosophy known as realism that says the law is not really the law until the courts have ruled on what it really means. I do not subscribe to that theory in particular but recognize that many judges do and will act in ways that my understanding of the written law says are wrong.

Yes, you would be charged under the Penal Code section 46.035. I am well aware of the definition of premises under the Penal Code section that says that this is not a premise. But I am also aware of the definition of a licensed premise under the Alcoholic Beverage Code. There premises is different, as it says: "Sec. 11.49. PREMISES DEFINED; DESIGNATION OF LICENSED PREMISES. (a) In this code, "premises" means the grounds and all buildings, vehicles, and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds, including any adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under the control of the same person."

I agree with you that the charge should never be made or should be thrown out by the court. I am just not willing to bet that the courts would agree.

EDIT: I just thought about one other point to consider. One of the points the courts would consider is that generally, one law cannot make another law senseless. When that happens the courts will try to look at the intent of the legislature. Since TABC can issue a 51% license to a location that has no buildings at all, then the definitions of premises in the ABC makes the definition of premises senseless. The intent of the legislature is to not allow carrying in locations that are primarily sales of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption. It would really depend on the specifics of the case making it to the court. If the premises had a building with a small area of tables on the sidewalk, the court might say the law really did mean just the building. If the licensed premise had no buildings but sold to an outdoor crowd walking around, it might rule the intent was to make the entire grounds off limits.

Perhaps I can clear this up a little bit. I cna even tell how the TABC Agents are trained, or were in 2009.

First, the fair is a 51% location for the whole grounds. There is only one license issued and it covers the whole grounds. It is for a vendor who only sells alcoholic beverages. When he applied for the license, he properly answered the question on percentage of sales from alcoholic beverages as more than 51% of his sales. TABC determined thus that it was a 51% location. If you do a search on this topic, we have pointed it out before for bowling alleys and other locations. A vendor can be a 51% vendor and it would cover the whole property unless he marked off parts of it on the license application.

A search of the TABC database just now shows that the license has been renewed. I would guess that the application was submitted before the expiration date and the earlier searches just happened to be within that time period. TABC has a policy that they will allow a person to continue to use the license while it is expired if the renewal has been received in a timely fashion. This helps not penalize people for TABC taking their time with an application.

There is a very gray area of the law caused by the conflict between the Penal Code and Alcoholic Beverage Code on the definition of a premises. TABC agents are taught both definitions in class and the conflict is brought up for them. Case law shows that the courts tend to go by the TABC definition so far, but that is all from before the CHL law was passed. Many people have been convicted of unlawfully carrying on a licensed premise for having a gun in their car in the parking lot. This was also brought up in class. When I taught class, I would then recommend that the agent keep both definitions in mind and make up their own mind on cases. I also recommended that they keep my policy of trying to avoid seeing any cases in appellate court styled as Rothstein v. anyone or anyone v. Rothstein. When I left, the primary instructor was also very pro-gun, though the director of the academy was more neutral on the issue.

Given that last policy, I recommend that no one here test this area of the law. I am fairly convinced that the courts would go with the Penal Code, but I cannot guarantee it. I am also convinced that this is a losing area for us. If we were to win in court, I believe the legislature would quickly change the definition of premises and it would not change in our favor.