TexasCHLforum.com

Just a thought, the owner of the property is probably making more from renting slots than selling beer. I would think this would invalidate the 51%. IANAL YMMV .02 and all that jazz.

The owner of the park holds the liquor license not the various vendors.

Odd



http://boardwalkonbulverde.com/about.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I tried address; I tried also- Cameron Davies also tried Cruising Kitchens... no results I did a generic search with Boardwalk ... only 1 thing appears in San Antonio,
Trade Name: BOARDWALK BISTRO
4011 BROADWAY ST
so doubt that's it
if it is ...
Gun Sign: BLUE

=======

You can just enter Bulverde
San Antonio
http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and find every licensee on the street

I did that ... some businesses are blue (most are) some are red

then look for 14732


I see lots of blue in 14330 BULVERDE ROAD
I see blues and red in 22000 block

I do not see 14732 on T.A.B.C.'s site for licenses for a Bulverde Street in San Antonio.

http://www.boardwalkonbulverde.com/about.html#r=off" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see The Boardwalk is B.Y.O.B. for alcoholic Beverages.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

(f) In this section:
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building.

You are in a very gray area of the law under these situations. While the definition of premises in the Penal Code is clearly just the building and would not cover the parking lot, the definition in the Alcoholic Beverage Code does include the parking lot. I know that the case law from the past favors the ABC definition, but it was all from prior to the CHL law taking affect. I do not know which would take priority now.

To further confuse the issue, it would appear that he is getting a special permit for the beer nights. These are not normal licenses and explain why it can not be found in the public database. It also makes the "premises" situation more difficult to be sure of.

To further confuse the issue, there is a law that allows agents of the license holder to carry on the premises. Agents includes employees. It could certainly be argued that a contracted food provider was an agent of the licensee. That doesn't help the customers though.

srothstein wrote:You are in a very gray area of the law under these situations. While the definition of premises in the Penal Code is clearly just the building and would not cover the parking lot, the definition in the Alcoholic Beverage Code does include the parking lot. I know that the case law from the past favors the ABC definition, but it was all from prior to the CHL law taking affect. I do not know which would take priority now.

I think a cop, prosecutor, or judge would have to be an idiot or have malice in his heart to intentionally or knowingly ignore the definition of "premises" the legislature wrote into the same section of the penal code to define the meaning in that section, and go fishing for a more convenient definition that's not only in a different section, but in a completely different code. However, I understand your concern, because we know there are stupid and evil people in all professions.

It would be like ignoring the 30.06 definition of notice because there is more case law for notice in 30.05, or prosecuting someone carrying under MPA for having a pistol in their car in the parking lot of a grocery store that sells alcohol.

gringo pistolero wrote:

srothstein wrote:You are in a very gray area of the law under these situations. While the definition of premises in the Penal Code is clearly just the building and would not cover the parking lot, the definition in the Alcoholic Beverage Code does include the parking lot. I know that the case law from the past favors the ABC definition, but it was all from prior to the CHL law taking affect. I do not know which would take priority now.

I think a cop, prosecutor, or judge would have to be an idiot or have malice in his heart to intentionally or knowingly ignore the definition of "premises" the legislature wrote into the same section of the penal code to define the meaning in that section, and go fishing for a more convenient definition that's not only in a different section, but in a completely different code. However, I understand your concern, because we know there are stupid and evil people in all professions.

It would be like ignoring the 30.06 definition of notice because there is more case law for notice in 30.05, or prosecuting someone carrying under MPA for having a pistol in their car in the parking lot of a grocery store that sells alcohol.

The issue is the discrepancy between TABC code and the TPC statutes. If a TABC officer finds you carrying, he is more than likely going to go with the code he is enforcing and you may be arrested due to that. In turn, if you are charged with violating that TABC code, then in turn the prosecutor and judge may in turn only refer to that code as the point of reference, and would possibly ignore any other code (TPC) unless is specifically showed an exception to the TABC code. There are these types of conflicting codes all over the books and these 'gotchas' are ones that you have to watch for.

So, your rant that these 'idiot bad cops, judges, etc' would be doing so with malice is a unjust statement.

And your 30.05/30.06 comparison would not be the same as it is in the same code and clearly defines how they apply to a CHL holder.

Keith B wrote:The issue is the discrepancy between TABC code and the TPC statutes. If a TABC officer finds you carrying, he is more than likely going to go with the code he is enforcing and you may be arrested due to that. In turn, if you are charged with violating that TABC code, then in turn the prosecutor and judge may in turn only refer to that code as the point of reference, and would possibly ignore any other code (TPC) unless is specifically showed an exception to the TABC code.

I don't manufacture or sell alcohol. What part of the Alcoholic Beverage Code applies to me?

gringo pistolero wrote:

Keith B wrote:The issue is the discrepancy between TABC code and the TPC statutes. If a TABC officer finds you carrying, he is more than likely going to go with the code he is enforcing and you may be arrested due to that. In turn, if you are charged with violating that TABC code, then in turn the prosecutor and judge may in turn only refer to that code as the point of reference, and would possibly ignore any other code (TPC) unless is specifically showed an exception to the TABC code.

I don't manufacture or sell alcohol. What part of the Alcoholic Beverage Code applies to me?

I was beginning to wonder the same thing. Is a "TABC office" really a LEO? Can they cite or arrest me or are they more like a health department inspector where they can cite the establishment, but don't really have any authority over customers?

gringo pistolero wrote:

Keith B wrote:The issue is the discrepancy between TABC code and the TPC statutes. If a TABC officer finds you carrying, he is more than likely going to go with the code he is enforcing and you may be arrested due to that. In turn, if you are charged with violating that TABC code, then in turn the prosecutor and judge may in turn only refer to that code as the point of reference, and would possibly ignore any other code (TPC) unless is specifically showed an exception to the TABC code.

I don't manufacture or sell alcohol. What part of the Alcoholic Beverage Code applies to me?

What I was trying to infer is what srothstein was talking about and the enforcement of the definition of premises would be used from the TABC code. And, yes the TABC code only applies to the liquor licensee.

The problem with the interpretation is that the TABC Texas Peace Officers guide here http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/other/ ... sGuide.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; does not clearly define premises for their definition, so they may only refer to that and use the TABC definition as what the licensee has defined, which could include an outdoor patio area or in this case, a park or open air food court. Yes, 46.05 does state building or portion of the building, but the DA may try to push the issue of 'premises' as the area defined by the license for the sale of alcohol and the Judge would have to make case law on it being a tighter standard. If I had to defend myself on an arrest, I would definitely be pointing out the section of 46.035 that defines premises for a CHL. That would be my argument, but that doesn't mean a Judge is going to rule in my favor.

And to answer C-Dub, yes a TABC officer is a peace officer in Texas.

Edit to add: http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-pr ... 12.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

C-dub wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

Keith B wrote:The issue is the discrepancy between TABC code and the TPC statutes. If a TABC officer finds you carrying, he is more than likely going to go with the code he is enforcing and you may be arrested due to that. In turn, if you are charged with violating that TABC code, then in turn the prosecutor and judge may in turn only refer to that code as the point of reference, and would possibly ignore any other code (TPC) unless is specifically showed an exception to the TABC code.

I don't manufacture or sell alcohol. What part of the Alcoholic Beverage Code applies to me?

I was beginning to wonder the same thing. Is a "TABC office" really a LEO? Can they cite or arrest me or are they more like a health department inspector where they can cite the establishment, but don't really have any authority over customers?

They are peace officers and can arrest you for violating the Texas Penal Code but they would have to be incompetent or corrupt to arrest you for a 46.035 violation and ignore the definition of premises that's right there in 46.035 TPC.

gringo pistolero wrote:I don't manufacture or sell alcohol. What part of the Alcoholic Beverage Code applies to me?

All the parts that deal with purchasing, possessing, and drinking alcoholic beverages clearly do. Also all the parts that say you can't manufacture or sell without a license. Many of the parts on what is permitted on a licensed premise will also apply to everyone.

One of the bad parts of Texas law, and I assume laws in other states also, is that the law is not a simple single code. For example, there are laws that apply to the general public concerning weapons in the Penal Code, Alcoholic Beverage Code, Parks and Wildlife Code, and Education Code that I am aware of. It would not surprise me to find them in other places also. There are criminal laws that would apply to you in the Water Code and the Insurance Code, even though you are not in those businesses either.

The good news is that many of the non-Penal Code laws are obscure and not well known to the police officers. They only enforce what they know. The bad news is that the specialized cops (school police, TABC agents, Insurance investigators, etc.) tend to get to know their codes very well and rely on them more than the Penal Code. In the case under discussion, I would expect the average police officer to rely on the Penal Code definition of premises but, as mentioned already, the average TABC agent would rely on the ABC definition.

As for the malice part, I would not be surprised to see that also. Not all cops and prosecutors favor concealed carry or even possession at home of firearms. I do not know of any currently in office, but there have been several well known cases of anti-gun D.A.s who had their own interpretation of the law that was not in agreement with how I read it. So I warn people when there is a possibility of trouble that I can see, and you can make up your own mind. I personally try to avoid being a test case, but it is a personal choice for you to make. Now that you know the factors to consider, you can make a rational choice.