TexasCHLforum.com

Would a person with a LTC charged with violating a 51% sign be charged under TPC 46.035 or TABC code?

dhoobler wrote:Would a person with a LTC charged with violating a 51% sign be charged under TPC 46.035 or TABC code?

There are no "crimes" defined in the TABC code, so they would have to charge you under the Penal Code, 46.035, which doesn't apply...

dhoobler wrote:Would a person with a LTC charged with violating a 51% sign be charged under TPC 46.035 or TABC code?

It would be a 46.035 charge, but not valid. TABC code does not have any criminal penalties in it, so they have to charge a person under Texas Penal Code. The only penalties in TABC code pertain to a licensee and the suspension or revocation of a license for violating the administrative rules.

So, we're back to getting the AG involved after all...

Posting bogus, gun forbidden signage will continue and many, even if they know it's bogus, can't be certain if the local gendarmes are as well informed as they should be about it. (and often aren't - remember our most recent ill informed LEO action at the liquor store?) So you still get to take the ride, even if you ultimately prevail, if caught carrying.

This could entail a dreadful, humiliating, costly legal experience.

So, what's being done about it?

As far as I can tell this sort of horror continues almost unabated.

YooHoo, Mr. AG, where are you, Youhoo...!

Oh yes, we peasants must remain patient.

Keith B wrote:

dhoobler wrote:Would a person with a LTC charged with violating a 51% sign be charged under TPC 46.035 or TABC code?

It would be a 46.035 charge, but not valid. TABC code does not have any criminal penalties in it, so they have to charge a person under Texas Penal Code. The only penalties in TABC code pertain to a licensee and the suspension or revocation of a license for violating the administrative rules.

If an LTC holder were to be charged with an offense under 46.035, I would expect that the definition of premises from 46.035 would apply:

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

If the courts can mix and match the law and pull the definition of premises from another section of code, the law becomes impossibly ambiguous.

dhoobler wrote:

Keith B wrote:

dhoobler wrote:Would a person with a LTC charged with violating a 51% sign be charged under TPC 46.035 or TABC code?

It would be a 46.035 charge, but not valid. TABC code does not have any criminal penalties in it, so they have to charge a person under Texas Penal Code. The only penalties in TABC code pertain to a licensee and the suspension or revocation of a license for violating the administrative rules.

If an LTC holder were to be charged with an offense under 46.035, I would expect that the definition of premises from 46.035 would apply:

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

If the courts can mix and match the law and pull the definition of premises from another section of code, the law becomes impossibly ambiguous.

What I should have said was 'arrested'. The prosecutor probably would drop the charges once it was realized that 'premises' as defined in 46.035 was not met due to not being a building or portion of. The issue is, who wants to be the test case? It may have to go to that level unless we can get an AG opinion in the favor of 46.035 and get TABC to change the wording in the rules so the TABC officers get the same definition in their rules as 46.035.

TABC versus Government owned buildings

Another example at Verizon Theater city owned building? with 51% red sign in Grand Prairie http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1068274

Another example of

city owned venue

with a TABC prohibition

Where a 30.06 sign wouldn't be valid if a city owned venue, but the 51% sign keeps licensees Handguns out...(not concealed rifles)

NotRPB wrote:TABC versus Government owned buildings

Another example at Verizon Theater city owned building? with 51% red sign in Grand Prairie http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1068274

In this case, it WOULD be in the 'premises', so this one might stick.

Keith B wrote:

NotRPB wrote:TABC versus Government owned buildings

Another example at Verizon Theater city owned building? with 51% red sign in Grand Prairie http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1068274

In this case, it WOULD be in the 'premises', so this one might stick.

yes, exactly ... that would be similar to inside the premises of a hospital with a valid 30.06 sign or inside the premises of a bar or valid 51% sign, where anyone could carry a concealed rifle legally, but a trained background checked licensee could not legally carry their handgun.

NotRPB wrote:TABC versus Government owned buildings

Another example at Verizon Theater city owned building? with 51% red sign in Grand Prairie http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1068274

Another example of

city owned venue

with a TABC prohibition

Where a 30.06 sign wouldn't be valid if a city owned venue, but the 51% sign keeps licensees Handguns out...(not concealed rifles)

Does the 51% rule apply to all revenues, or just food vs beverage?
I would suspect that ticket revenue far exceeds alcohol sales at the Verizon theater

AJSully421 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Or we remove the whole 51% law from Texas Code and public property can stop using this as an anti-gun shield.

There is the answer.

46.03 should be airports, courtrooms (not courthouses, or court offices) and jails / prisons... that's it.

Secured areas of airports are off limits per federal law, so no need to also ban it per state law as that would just be duplicative. Just courtrooms and jails / prisons.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Or we remove the whole 51% law from Texas Code and public property can stop using this as an anti-gun shield.

There is the answer.

46.03 should be airports, courtrooms (not courthouses, or court offices) and jails / prisons... that's it.

Secured areas of airports are off limits per federal law, so no need to also ban it per state law as that would just be duplicative. Just courtrooms and jails / prisons.

Actually, they aren't. Airport secure areas are subject to state law. That's why everyone caught at DFW gets charged under state law. You may be able to be charged under federal law for evading the screening, but the act of possession in the secure area is TXPC 46.03.

ScottDLS wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Or we remove the whole 51% law from Texas Code and public property can stop using this as an anti-gun shield.

There is the answer.

46.03 should be airports, courtrooms (not courthouses, or court offices) and jails / prisons... that's it.

Secured areas of airports are off limits per federal law, so no need to also ban it per state law as that would just be duplicative. Just courtrooms and jails / prisons.

Actually, they aren't. Airport secure areas are subject to state law. That's why everyone caught at DFW gets charged under state law. You may be able to be charged under federal law for evading the screening, but the act of possession in the secure area is TXPC 46.03.

Yep. Federal law prohibits firearms on aircraft being operated under Sec. 135 (Common carrier) unless it is LE or Crew who is authorized, but federal law is silent on the buildings at the airport. 14 CFR 135.119 if you are curious.