Found this little bit of info on the TABC website

[SCone]

All alcoholic beverage retailers must post one of two firearms signs.

The 51% sign is required to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of their gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption or establishments licensed to sell for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts are required to post a sign that warns that the unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony. The holder of a concealed handgun license may lawfully possess a concealed handgun on these premises.

[Mike1951]

The 51% sign is required to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of their gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

But you must understand that whether the correct sign, wrong sign, or no sign is posted, it is the responsibility of the CHL to be aware and carry accordingly. In a 51% location with no signage or incorrect signage, the CHL is still in violation.

There is no penalty, except maybe an administrative one, for the 51% location for posting incorrect signage.

[nemesis]

PC 46.035 states clearly that it is an offense if I "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carries a handgun" on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69 or 74 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code but I am not clairvoyant and I doubt they would give me access to their books so that I could determine the proportion of their income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premise consumption.

I don't, ever, frequent bars and I believe I could deduce by myself that Beto's Friendly Neighborhood El Toro Bar is likely to be a 51%er but I have no way of knowing whether a business that deals in more than liquor is off limits unless they tell me.

If I happen to be sitting in Mom's Old Homestyle Pancake House And Yarn Barn;, which also serves alcoholic drinks, and Mom rushes up to me to brag that she makes more money off booze than she does on pancakes or yarn; I can't see where that happens to be "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly" carrying unless I don't leave immediately.

[Charles L. Cotton]

PC 46.035 states clearly that it is an offense if I "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carries a handgun" on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69 or 74 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code but I am not clairvoyant and I doubt they would give me access to their books so that I could determine the proportion of their income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premise consumption.

I don't, ever, frequent bars and I believe I could deduce by myself that Beto's Friendly Neighborhood El Toro Bar is likely to be a 51%er but I have no way of knowing whether a business that deals in more than liquor is off limits unless they tell me.

If I happen to be sitting in Mom's Old Homestyle Pancake House And Yarn Barn;, which also serves alcoholic drinks, and Mom rushes up to me to brag that she makes more money off booze than she does on pancakes or yarn; I can't see where that happens to be "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly" carrying unless I don't leave immediately.

We always discuss this in my CHL classes. Although the lack of a 51% sign is not a defense to prosecution of a CHL, it may be difficult under many circumstances to get a conviction. As you noted, the CHL must "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly" carry a gun into a 51% location. Since every CHL attends classes taught by CHL instructors who have been trained and certified by the DPS, and every instructor presumably tells his/her students that 51% signs are required in 51% locations, it may be difficult to prove the required mental state. However, this would not be the case if you go into a place like the old neighborhood ice house that sells only beer and Fritos! You have every reason to believe it is a 51% location, or at the least, it would be "reckless" for you to enter without finding out. As Stephen Rothstein has pointed out, you can look at their TABC license to see if they are a 51% location.

Either way, one thing is certain. The lack of a 51% sign is not a defense, so even if you ultimately win, you'll pay your attorney to give you a guided tour through the "system"

Chas.

[BigDan]

The only thing you can be sure of is what is listed on the TABC license itself. If it says Sign: Red, that means it's a 51% establishment, whether posted or not. Unfortunately, it is up to us to make sure we follow the rules whether the bar/pub is or not. =-/

[LedJedi]

IMO they REALLY need to fix the mechanics of this. It needs to be closer to the 30.06 posting requirements. Otherwise you could potentially get caught in a catch 22. I probably won't because i'm not a bar or really an alcohol person for the most part but I can see others getting caught in this.

The fact that you can't officially verify the status of a place until you're already inside and looking at the license is folly. You're already in violation at that point because you're already inside.

The 51% signs need to have as much power as the 30.06 signs. Besides, i dont see the fundamental problem anyway. It's still illegal to be intoxicated. If i'm not drinking what's the problem with me carrying into a bar concealed? That's no different than carrying into Sams Club. I'm not drinking in Sams Club either. The whole concept is about as silly as banning CHLs from sporting events and school functions.

It is my right as an american to be armed. i should not have to put myself in legal jeopardy by going into a business (with good intentions) while exercising my 2nd amendment right simply because of an ill-thought-out law.

If you're all fired bent on shooting someone you're gonna shoot someone. Your chl status and legality of having a firearm in a restricted area is as irrelevant as gun-free-zones themselves. If these businesses can be legally required to post their licenses inside they can be legally required to post 51% signs. If they don't do it properly... yank their license until they comply.

[KBCraig]

The fact that you can't officially verify the status of a place until you're already inside and looking at the license is folly. You're already in violation at that point because you're already inside.

It's worse than that. TABC defines "licensed premises" differently than other code sections, and it's specific to each licensed location, so the parking lot might be "licensed premises".

Yes, you could be in violation just for pulling into a parking lot to make a phone call or turn around, or to pick up a friend who's called for a ride because he had too much to drink.

[The Annoyed Man]

There is a vibrant local wine industry in this area. There are 6 wineries located along the 2-3 blocks of Main St. in "downtown" Grapevine alone. There are others that are within a few blocks of Main St. Most of the local wineries sell wine by the bottle for off premises consumption, although they do offer wine tasting for a nominal cost. I am absolutely certain that 95% or more of their revenue comes from the selling of bottled wine for off premises consumption. However, twice recently, while "cold calling" during the course of my business day, I have entered an establishment while carrying that called itself a "winery," but which turned out to be a "wine bar." Neither of them had a 51% sign posted at the entrance. In both cases, once inside I saw what looked like a bar and I also noticed that there were no bottles on display that weren't behind the bar. I specifically asked if they were selling wine by the bottle or by the glass. Both managers informed me that their establishment sold wine only by the glass. In both instances, I smiled, told the guy that I was "pressed for time" but that I had just wanted to introduce myself, and I turned around and left.

Now, first of all, my weapon was well concealed, and I didn't announce that I was armed, so nobody but me was aware that I was carrying in the first place. However, I'm not ignorant of the law, and I realize that I am barred by law from carrying in these two establishments - and that their failure to post the required signage probably isn't be a defense to prosecution. That being said, one has to be charged in order to be prosecuted, and that would have required my hunting down a cop and confessing what had happened; and then it would require that the cop abandon all common sense and arrest me for it. Since no other "crime" took place, I doubt that any of our local LEOs (who are very good, BTW) would want to take on the paperwork burden, and they would politely send me on my way with a recommendation to seek counseling.

However, even if something stupid had happened, like for instance if I was printing and the wine bar tender noticed it when I turned around to leave, and he called a cop who happened to be right outside the door and who entered before I had exited, I'm pretty sure that my explanation of how I came to be inside a business that was not posted in violation of the law and that I had immediately turned around and was trying to leave so as to be in compliance right when he walked in, the officer would be smart enough not to make a federal case out of it and let me go with a warning to be more careful in the future. I am equally sure that he would probably remind the manager that they needed to get their sign up in order to avoid exactly this type of situation.

I realize that some police departments are better than others and that you can't always count on encountering an LEO who is pro RKBA, but I have great faith in the common sense of the Grapevine Police Department, and in their relationship to the community they police - which is a very good relationship. I am equally sure that, from now on, before entering any "winery" that is not posted at the entrance, I will put my cell phone to use and call them to see if they are really a winery, or just a wine bar.

[srothstein]

The fact that you can't officially verify the status of a place until you're already inside and looking at the license is folly. You're already in violation at that point because you're already inside.

It's worse than that. TABC defines "licensed premises" differently than other code sections, and it's specific to each licensed location, so the parking lot might be "licensed premises".

Yes, you could be in violation just for pulling into a parking lot to make a phone call or turn around, or to pick up a friend who's called for a ride because he had too much to drink.

Technical correction, but I was pointing this very subject out to a class of agents this week. It is not illegal to have a gun in your car in the parking lot of a licensed premise. Since the law was rewritten to make being in the car an element of the offense, you can have the gun in the car in the parking lot, even though TABC considers the lot part of the licensed premise. And, since 46.035 only applies to carrying under the authority of a CHL, this does not matter to the car.

WARNING: Since I had to mention it just now to the class, who were complaining that they had not been given their penal code update class, there may still be officers who do not know about this. If this does happen to anyone, I will be happy to testify how the agents are taught on this law.