City did it again...or did they?

[Soap]

Last year for the 4th of July the city of Schertz held fireworks at a public park. The event was free and open to the public. They posted a gun buster sign, however, it was not a 30.06 or 07. I posted the picture of the sign last year. I believe it was also reported on. This year they tried it again. They did not have the 06 or 07 sign but this time at the park entrace, they had a 51% sign. Yes, I believe alchol was served there. NO way do they make enough sales to fall under that sign, nor did I even see one person with a beer. Reguardless if they do, can they post a 51% sign at a public park? Someone mentioned it to an officer and he kind of laughed and didnt add any comments but to be fair the man was busy. I'll have a picture up tomorrow.

[warnmar10]

[chasfm11]

This seems to be the work around for Cities. Lewisville did the same thing when they fenced off their entire downtown for Western Days. I did a deliberate search, trying to find the holder of the TABC license but could not. I'm not willing to expend too much energy on it since I don't believe that TABC is supportive of preventing the improper sign postings on these temporary events. At best, they will slap the city's hands and the forget about what happened this year when the city posts the same 51% sign next time.

[Jusme]

Last year for the 4th of July the city of Schertz held fireworks at a public park. The event was free and open to the public. They posted a gun buster sign, however, it was not a 30.06 or 07. I posted the picture of the sign last year. I believe it was also reported on. This year they tried it again. They did not have the 06 or 07 sign but this time at the park entrace, they had a 51% sign. Yes, I believe alchol was served there. NO way do they make enough sales to fall under that sign, nor did I even see one person with a beer. Reguardless if they do, can they post a 51% sign at a public park? Someone mentioned it to an officer and he kind of laughed and didnt add any comments but to be fair the man was busy. I'll have a picture up tomorrow.

You can go on here to check to the validity of the 51% signage: https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/
The liquor permit is held by a vendor, and can encompass, the entire park area, since they allow on premise consumption. However, the entire area, is not 51% because there may be other vendors there, not covered under TABC. Think Ft. Worth Stock Show, or the Texas State Fair alcohol is served, and as long as one is inside the confines, of the grounds, they can consume alcohol, but the entire area is not TABC 51%, mainly because the vendors selling alcohol, cannot be expected to enforce all TABC regulations, on the entire grounds, i.e lewd behavior, weapon possession, etc.
The vendors are supposed to only post their booths, but this is an ongoing controversy, and has not been properly addressed, by lawmakers, or the TABC.
Cities, will allow this to continue, unless we get some legislation which specifically addresses this. This is especially true, at festivals, or fairs, which are only for a day or a weekend, and it allows, municipalities, to skirt the fines for signs rules.

The TABC is going through a major shakeup, due to mismanagement, and overreach allegations. I have a feeling they will be more sympathetic, if enough people complain. Also write your reps.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/03 ... tled-tabc/

http://www.kbtx.com/content/news/TABC-v ... 60733.html

[Soccerdad1995]

HB 560 would have solved this issue completely, along with many others.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Cities have the authority to ban firearm possession by non-LTCs in city parks via any sign that gets the message across.

One of our long-time Forum Members was a TABC agent and he explained that a 51% sign posted in these circumstances may or may not be enforceable, depending upon the type of liquor license held by the company selling alcohol. He gave a bowling ally as an example where the company running the bar was not the same company that owned the bowling ally. The licensee had an all-premises liquor license thus rendering the entire building off-limits to LTCs. I have no idea if this would work at an outside venue with or without a perimeter fence.

Chas.

[locke_n_load]

I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.

The park isn't a "premises" as defined in TPC §46.035 and §46.03. However, it may be a 51%.

Chas.

[Soap]

I really don't believe it's a valid sign, they are cheating the system I think. I think its a big shame that a law abiding citzen who begged and paid a tax to have the "right" to carry should be more afraid of law enforcement than a potential attack. These events are big targets for crazies or terrorist. No, I don't think anything would ever happen but even ISIS has made threats towards the people who live in this area. Lots of servicemen, pilots, here. There aren't enough police to protect people. The event is huge. It's just sad that a permit holder has to live in fear of their own government.

[locke_n_load]

I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.

The park isn't a "premises" as defined in TPC §46.035 and §46.03. However, it may be a 51%.

Chas.

But isn't the violation for carrying on the premises of a 51% location under 46.035, which defines premises in that section as a building or part of a building? It does not state on the property of a 51%, but the premises. Not arguing, just clarifying what I thought was my understanding. Any further clarification is appreciated.

Both from 46.035:

(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;
(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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.

The park isn't a "premises" as defined in TPC §46.035 and §46.03. However, it may be a 51%.

Chas.

But isn't the violation for carrying on the premises of a 51% location under 46.035, which defines premises in that section as a building or part of a building? It does not state on the property of a 51%, but the premises. Not arguing, just clarifying what I thought was my understanding. Any further clarification is appreciated.

Both from 46.035:

(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;
(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.

I agree with you and that's what I would argue in court. However, I haven't heard of a case where an alleged 51% violation was overturned because the defendant was outside the bar on the patio or elsewhere on the property. The argument pay carry the day, but I can't recommend giving it a try.

Chas.

[Frankie]

I too ran into this sign at Schertz fest last night. Had to make the 5 block walk back to my truck to secure my Glock 30. Groaning and gripping the entire way. I resisted the urge to choice my displeasure to the fine office working vendor parking patrol but he was busy dealing with drivers ignoring their tiny hand written "vendor parking only".
The multiple fireworks mishaps were quit entertaining and fortunately the only danger we encountered.
Probably our last year going to the actual park for fireworks viewing.

[ninjabread]

Has anybody with a LTC been convicted of violating 51% when they weren't inside the building? If so, where does the line stop? Is it illegal to have a handgun in my car in a bar parking lot because they own the property?

[nightmare69]

This was at a church carnival in San Antonio last year.

[Soap]

I too ran into this sign at Schertz fest last night. Had to make the 5 block walk back to my truck to secure my Glock 30. Groaning and gripping the entire way. I resisted the urge to choice my displeasure to the fine office working vendor parking patrol but he was busy dealing with drivers ignoring their tiny hand written "vendor parking only".
The multiple fireworks mishaps were quit entertaining and fortunately the only danger we encountered.
Probably our last year going to the actual park for fireworks viewing.

I don't think the sign is valid. Last year it was not. Ehmmm.