TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare wrote:I was born at night but I wasn't born last night.

And this relates to?

jbarn wrote:

Keith B wrote:
They may know 46.035, but the rub will be the difference in what they are taught to enforce as 'premise' vs premise defined in 46.035. I don't know that many field officers who are going to sit down during the incident and look at the full details of the law and make the call. They will more than likely cite the person under the definition they are used to and let the DA or Judge make the legal call.

I just disagree.

Your prerogative. I tend to go with our resident expert on TABC matters when it comes to this viewtopic.php?f=7&t=66095&hilit=premises#p810280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jbarn wrote:

Keith B wrote:A-R, this a grey areaes define premiknowingefined by the license holder to dispense alcohol when they apply for the license, and that can be the entire grounds and parking lot. And, if enforcement is done on a 51% violation, it will probably be done by a TABC officer and not another LEO.

SO, while you may end up technically beating the rap on the definition of premise under 46.035, you may not beat the ride. IMO it's best to abide by the broader definition to make sure all laws are adhered to.

Any enforcement of 51% has to be done under penal code 46.035. That is where the law is located. TABC officers are Peace Officers and take the same TCLEOSE/TCOLE test as all other peace officers. I cannot Imagine a TABC officer not knowing PC 46.035

I worry about that about as much as I do a cop not knowing a CHL allows me to carry a handgun at the mall.

They may know 46.035, but the rub will be the difference in what they are taught to enforce as 'premise' vs premise defined in 46.035. I don't know that many field officers who are going to sit down during the incident and look at the full details of the law and make the call. They will more than likely cite the person under the definition they are used to and let the DA or Judge make the legal call.

A-R, this is a grey area in the law. TABC does define premises as the area defined by the license holder to dispense alcohol when they apply for the license, and that can be the entire grounds and parking lot. And, if enforcement is done on a 51% violation, it will probably be done by a TABC officer and not another LEO.

SO, while you may end up technically beating the rap on the definition of premise under 46.035, you may not beat the ride. IMO it's best to abide by the broader definition to make sure all laws are adhered to.

nightmare wrote:

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? 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?

Based on the license search, it looks like there's one vendor selling alcohol at multiple points at the faire.

Based on my reading of the penal code, carrying handgun anywhere on the grounds is a felony for unlicensed people but it's only inside buildings for those of us with a CHL. I would carry on the grounds with a clear conscience as long as I stay out of buildings. However, I might need something like a stadium pal to accomplish that, which rules out the kilt.

Incorrect. TABC premises means all of the grounds if they are defined on the license. The easiest way to tell is if they allow you to remove the drink from the building and take it out on the grounds, then they are most likely defined on the license and are off limits to carry.

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.