TexasCHLforum.com

I called the local TABC office to report a store that I felt displayed a non-compliant Red 51% sign.

The store I have issue with sells for on and off premise consumption, however, there is no way possible that 51% of her sales come from on premise consumption. The gentleman I had on the phone was very cordial and wanting to help. He even had his boss on the other line and I heard him run through what I had just told him to get a second opinion. He, knowing the store, and the owner, agreed with me that she does not sell 51% for on premise consumption.

This is a relatively new store that got their TABC license in Feb of this year. He felt that Austin saw the license request, assumed it was a bar, and sent the Red 51% sign. He will try and get it removed soon, but said in Feb of 09 they will have to renew and report actual sales which will also take care of it.

He went on to say that he assumed I was a CHL and that was why I was reporting it which I did not confirm nor deny. He stated that the 51% and no carry for a CHL was ridiculous to begin with.

All in all, good experience speaking with him.

First off, good for you - thank you for doing that and stepping up!

txfour wrote:He stated that the 51% and no carry for a CHL was ridiculous to begin with.

I can't believe he said this - Anyways, I don't know where I lie with this. Part of me likes this law because it prevents reckless CHL holders from getting wasted and potentially discharging their firearm (on purpose or not).

However, I also dislike the fact that if a CHL holder goes into an establishment like this, unarmed, then the trip to/from the vehicle, the time to dis/re-arm, etc, all adds up to quite a bit of time being more "vulnerable", especially since you could possibly accidentally brandish said firearm while attempting to secure/store it in said vehicle.

I guess that is why I avoid these places now. I'm still on the fence of whether I like the 51% or not, but either way, I try to avoid it at all costs.

LCP_Dogg wrote:First off, good for you - thank you for doing that and stepping up!

txfour wrote:He stated that the 51% and no carry for a CHL was ridiculous to begin with.

I can't believe he said this - Anyways, I don't know where I lie with this. Part of me likes this law because it prevents reckless CHL holders from getting wasted and potentially discharging their firearm (on purpose or not).

However, I also dislike the fact that if a CHL holder goes into an establishment like this, unarmed, then the trip to/from the vehicle, the time to dis/re-arm, etc, all adds up to quite a bit of time being more "vulnerable", especially since you could possibly accidentally brandish said firearm while attempting to secure/store it in said vehicle.

I guess that is why I avoid these places now. I'm still on the fence of whether I like the 51% or not, but either way, I try to avoid it at all costs.

I think what he meant by the comment was that we, as CHL holders, know the limitations on alcohol and would not jeopardize out status for a beer or two as he stated that CHLer's were typically of the highest law abiding citizens.

I would imagine the 51% law was created purely to offset temptation to drink and carry a firearm. I dislike it for one reason, in my opinion, you are are more likely to be in a dangerous situation at a bar (and that may be why it was written too - to keep you out of harms way) than many other places you will go. I'm like you. I just avoid the places all together.

LCP_Dogg wrote:
I can't believe he said this - Anyways, I don't know where I lie with this. Part of me likes this law because it prevents reckless CHL holders from getting wasted and potentially discharging their firearm (on purpose or not).

I agree that getting "wasted" while carrying is irresponsible but we as CHLers cant be "intoxicated" while carrying anyways. The law is an arbitrary restriction that helps to comfort the sheeple. If the law was intended to stop people from drinking while carrying they would have ban us from all places that sell alcohol for on site consumption, which also doesn't solve anything because if I wanted to I could get drunk at home and then carry. This of course is assuming that you are concerned about carrying legally which you (not you personally) are probably not, being that you are getting hammered while carrying.

The reason I disagree with this law is because even though I almost never, ever, drink, I do have to play gigs now and then in a bar-type place and clearly the load-in, walk to and from the car with a couple grand worth of gear in hand, etc. is the most vulnerable time for me.

If the 51% restriction made sense it would also apply to a judge who has a CHL and to peace officers who are not in the actual discharge of their duties.

It should be repealed. The intoxication rule is sufficient and it should be expanded to include peace officers, federal agents, etc.

The best pool tables here in Amarillo are in bars. Kinda sucks that I can't go shoot pool and drink a coke.

mr.72 wrote:The reason I disagree with this law is because even though I almost never, ever, drink, I do have to play gigs now and then in a bar-type place and clearly the load-in, walk to and from the car with a couple grand worth of gear in hand, etc. is the most vulnerable time for me.

That's the single most significant problem with making any location off-limits. It ignores the walk to and from that location. I've mentioned before, I can't imagine I'd need a gun at a Texans' football game, there have been at least a half-dozen murders in the Astrodome parking lot over the years. It's not the destination that concerns me, it's the trip to and from it.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That's the single most significant problem with making any location off-limits. It ignores the walk to and from that location. I've mentioned before, I can't imagine I'd need a gun at a Texans' football game, there have been at least a half-dozen murders in the Astrodome parking lot over the years. It's not the destination that concerns me, it's the trip to and from it.

Chas.

Yeah, there is nothing like a half mile walk through a mostly deserted parking lot at night that screams "victim" to me. Reminds me of the "victim lights" on college campuses.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mr.72 wrote:The reason I disagree with this law is because even though I almost never, ever, drink, I do have to play gigs now and then in a bar-type place and clearly the load-in, walk to and from the car with a couple grand worth of gear in hand, etc. is the most vulnerable time for me.

That's the single most significant problem with making any location off-limits. It ignores the walk to and from that location. I've mentioned before, I can't imagine I'd need a gun at a Texans' football game, there have been at least a half-dozen murders in the Astrodome parking lot over the years. It's not the destination that concerns me, it's the trip to and from it.

Chas.

flb_78 wrote:The best pool tables here in Amarillo are in bars. Kinda sucks that I can't go shoot pool and drink a coke.

The only reason I go to bars is to play pool..

I rarely ever drink, being on call 24/7, I just cant do it.. If I do drink, it's at home and only when I know for sure that I wont have to go anywhere.. Not to mention alcohol doesn't agree with me well at all, feel horrible just after 1 beer... I'll go to a bar to hang out with friends to get them off my case that I never go out, or to play pool every once in a while... And it never fails, every time I go out to a place like that, when leaving some guy pulls up in a car. Giving some bogus story about his car being broke down 50 miles away and needing money to pay the repair bill. The last one didn't think to kindly when I gave my opinion about his story. And that he gave me the same story 3 weeks ago at another place. If I wouldn't have had other people around me at the time I wouldn't have said it. But his attitude still made me nervous enough to wish I had my plastic, and my little buddy on my hip.. Wouldn't have mattered, because it wasn't legal to carry where I was..

I am glad to here you had a good experience calling TABC. I just wanted to correct one slightly incorrect statement. TABC does not just assume anything about any license application. The original application also listed what the expected sales would be and we decided the 51% rule based on that. The store may have guessed wrong on their sales when they first listed them, but the application is based on their sales.

There is one other point I have made before about these applications. The application just asks for the food, alcohol, and other sales. The store would have combined their off premise and on premise alcohol sales. That could be more than the 51% needed. This is a flaw in the current application.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mr.72 wrote:The reason I disagree with this law is because even though I almost never, ever, drink, I do have to play gigs now and then in a bar-type place and clearly the load-in, walk to and from the car with a couple grand worth of gear in hand, etc. is the most vulnerable time for me.

That's the single most significant problem with making any location off-limits. It ignores the walk to and from that location. emphasis mine I've mentioned before, I can't imagine I'd need a gun at a Texans' football game, there have been at least a half-dozen murders in the Astrodome parking lot over the years. It's not the destination that concerns me, it's the trip to and from it.

Chas.

Amen to that!