51% sign

[Keith B]

It's too bad the 51% sign isn't required instead of having to hunt down the permits, for those rare occasions when you're just not sure.

Have fun with it and pretend it is a game when you search for their license; kinda like a 'CHL Scavenger Hunt.' All CHL'ers like a good challenge, don't they?

[The Annoyed Man]

Steve,

If you don't mind, I've got another related question for you that's been twisting my noodle the past few days...

I have a new business, and as part of my promotion efforts, I've been going door to door in the local business district and introducing myself to other business owners with a 30 second spiel about what I do. I am located in Grapevine, which as you may or may not know, is a winery town. I do not always have advance knowledge about the type of each and every business I step into, but I am always carrying. Three times now, I've walked through a door and found myself inside of places whose sole purpose is to sell wine by the glass. I guess you would call them "wine bars," and as far as I can tell, they offer no food to speak of, other than perhaps a little bread and cheese or something like that to compliment the wine. In any case, it is obvious that these places derive virtually every penny they earn from the sale of wine by the glass. The owner of one of these establishments even volunteered to me that they do not sell by the bottle, but only by the glass.

In each case, after finding myself inside, I did a quick look back at their doors and windows to see if there was a 51% sign posted which I had missed, so that I could get the heck out of there if I needed to. In none of these places was there a 51% sign posted, and I double checked after I got back outside just to be certain.

My question is: Are wine bars exempted from the 51% law, and do CHL holders have any legal requirements regarding said wine bars - whether or not they are posted - that is in any way different from our obligations regarding "regular" bars?

[Keith B]

Steve,

If you don't mind, I've got another related question for you that's been twisting my noodle the past few days...

I have a new business, and as part of my promotion efforts, I've been going door to door in the local business district and introducing myself to other business owners with a 30 second spiel about what I do. I am located in Grapevine, which as you may or may not know, is a winery town. I do not always have advance knowledge about the type of each and every business I step into, but I am always carrying. Three times now, I've walked through a door and found myself inside of places whose sole purpose is to sell wine by the glass. I guess you would call them "wine bars," and as far as I can tell, they offer no food to speak of, other than perhaps a little bread and cheese or something like that to compliment the wine. In any case, it is obvious that these places derive virtually every penny they earn from the sale of wine by the glass. The owner of one of these establishments even volunteered to me that they do not sell by the bottle, but only by the glass.

In each case, after finding myself inside, I did a quick look back at their doors and windows to see if there was a 51% sign posted which I had missed, so that I could get the heck out of there if I needed to. In none of these places was there a 51% sign posted, and I double checked after I got back outside just to be certain.

My question is: Are wine bars exempted from the 51% law, and do CHL holders have any legal requirements regarding said wine bars - whether or not they are posted - that is in any way different from our obligations regarding "regular" bars?

I'm not Steve, and IANATABCA (I am not a TABC Agent ), but in his post, here is a quote:

The important thing to remember is that the sign is actually irrelevant to you. The law forbids you carrying from someplace that gets 51% or more from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption, AS DETERMINED BY TABC. That last is in caps, because it truly is the important part of the law for you. Note that this means that what the signs says is irrelevant to prosecuting you and what the business actually does get from drinks is also irrelevant.

I will assume they are required to have a 'wine and beer permit and retail dealer’s on-premise license', and that is their main income (>51%) so they would be off-limits, sign or not.

If you've gotten to know any of them, drop in and see if they will show you what license they have.

[aardwolf]

It's unfortunate the penalty for failing to post the proper sign is so mild. If a CHL can go to jail for being on a 51% premises even if it isn't posted, maybe the penalty for failing to post the required sign should be the same.

Even better, we can change the law so 51% means the same thing to LEO and CHL.

[srothstein]

Since a lot of places don't have a license immediately available, when I call TABC to inquire about the license, will I be able to get a determination from the TABC agent I speak to whether they're 51% or not? Last time we really spoke about this, I did not get any definitive answer from the Sargeant I spoke with regarding La Zona Rosa here in Austin. Back then, I was asking whether they were 51% or not, and he did not seem to understand that he could answer my inquiry. I've now got more places that I'm uncertain about, and would certainly like to get clarification on them. Now that I've become more familiar with the terminology, I might take another crack at it. If I ask if the license is marked "sign=blue" or "sign=red", will the TABC agent on the phone be able to look that up?

Let me check a little further into this. I don't think it is easily available in the system the local agents get, just in one part of the licensing system used to print the licenses themselves.

[srothstein]

Let me check a little further into this. I don't think it is easily available in the system the local agents get, just in one part of the licensing system used to print the licenses themselves.

I checked and the local agents will not have the information available in their computer system. The determination is done in the licensing system and only that system can access it. This appears to also be why we cannot get the line added to the public access system.

[Rayden]

maybe a slight technicality, but doesn't it also have to be in spanish?

Sí.

GC §411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.
(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

- Jim

Why only Spanish? I say they need to just stick with English or else add the gazillion other foreign languages spoken here

[seamusTX]

Why only Spanish?

Tradition. When Texas became a repubilc in 1836, Spanish was the official language.

- Jim

[Kalrog]

Steve - I got another one for you. I hope you have an answer for this one as I couldn't get an answer *dang has it been that long?* 3 years ago when I posted this question. I could repost everything, but I think the link is better. Any insight?

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... xpo#p18599

[srothstein]

Steve - I got another one for you. I hope you have an answer for this one as I couldn't get an answer *dang has it been that long?* 3 years ago when I posted this question. I could repost everything, but I think the link is better. Any insight?

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... xpo#p18599

Well, you do come up with interesting situations. For those who do not care to follow the link, the question is if a single subcontractor vendor in a large facility can cause the whole facility to be posted 51%. I have been looking the same thing at some temporary permits for festivals, like the Luling Watermelon Thump.

I think that the response you got was accurate for the way we are doing business, but I will have to dig through the codes to find why. Basically, the license, whether for a property owner or a contracted vendor, covers the whole building and all parking lots UNLESS they "diagram" it some other way to mark areas off. Those areas would no longer be considered part of the licensed premises. But the vendor can only sell on the premises his license is good for. So, the vendor wants to be able to sell from his stand and the restaurant portion, and walking around in the stands. Thus, almost the whole building has to be part of his licensed premise. And the law makes no distinction that I know of for multiple businesses at one location, so if his business is 51%, then the whole premises he sells in is considered 51%.

What I would look for next is if the vendor for the beer and the vendor for the other refreshments is the same company. If they are selling at the same stand (not just the same building but one register with mixed funds type of thing), then I would highly doubt that the food total is less than the alcohol total.

Let me do some research in this and see what I can find in the code. I am willing to bet the problem is the code considers the permit to cover the whole premise and does not count other vendors incomes in it. This is why malls make the restaurants in them diagram off the rest of the mall.

[NcongruNt]

Let me check a little further into this. I don't think it is easily available in the system the local agents get, just in one part of the licensing system used to print the licenses themselves.

I checked and the local agents will not have the information available in their computer system. The determination is done in the licensing system and only that system can access it. This appears to also be why we cannot get the line added to the public access system.

That certainly makes for a difficult situation. By law we are required to disarm before entering a 51% establishment, but we have no clear and reliable way to determine if the establishment is 51%. Ideally, all TABC licensed venues that are 51% will have 51% signs posted, and all others will not. In reality, we all know this is not how things play out. 51% establishments don't post the signs, and non-51% establishments do, and we're left scratching our heads wondering what the reality of the situation is, with no way to obtain a clear answer.

As en example, I recently went to a music show at Stubb's BBQ here in Austin. This is a well-known venue for music, and is also a restaurant and has a bar. Once I actually found the license online (it is apparently listed under SARC Inc. at the address), there were no telltale signs that the place was not 51% (such as the FB classification) in the listing. I ended up going and disarming when leaving my car, walking several blocks through areas that are not well lit with plenty of opportunity for nefarious activity. I got there, and there were signs with the wording found on 51% signs (The licensed or unlicensed possession...), but no 51% sign proper from what I saw. The place is all-ages, serves food, beer & mixed drinks, and charges a hefty ticket price. It is also a restaurant during the day. As an example, I spent $40 for a ticket, $8 on food, and $3 on a beer. Out of $52, my on-premises spending on alcohol was a mere 1.89%. I realize that I am a light drinker, but for that venue to be truly 51%, people would be spending over $40 per person on average at such a concert. Factoring in all the underage customers (and there are plenty of them), non-minors would have to be drinking massive amounts of alcohol in order to make the place 51%.

The only possibility here that I can think if is if the music venue is a separate business from the alcohol sales. It would have to be in combination with the restaurant, as I could find no other licenses listed at that address, and the restaurant serves alcohol. I could believe that this situation would make it a plausible 51% venue, but this is mere speculation on my part.

Just to be clear here, Steve... I'm not asking a question of you here - I'm aware that you have no way of answering it and it would be rather inconsiderate on my part to ask you for answers every time I had a question about a venue. This is more for the sake of discussion and an illustration of how the existing law makes for an impossible situation on the part of the CHL holder. We are simply relegated to disarm if there is any question at all in our minds or risk breaking the law. There is always the question of whether we have broken the law unknowingly at a venue that does not appear to be 51%, or at an event where the license covers the entire premises as you mentioned above.

Though TABC certainly has bigger concerns to think about, this certainly is a situation that needs remedy. The most ideal solution is to eliminate the 51% premises as off-limits to CHL, and there has certainly talk of that happening next session. That is, however, more than a year away and by no means a certainty. Failing that (or in the meantime), it seems that the 51% status should be an easily accessible public record, as the current law demands that we know information that we cannot reasonably obtain.

I'm not sure if the TSRA has a suggestion box, but I would certainly be willing to talk to someone about it. Chas, if you know of a way I can bring this up, I'm certainly willing to do so. There are certainly enough examples that have been discussed here on these forums, and I'd be happy to provide examples and a description of my interactions with TABC and the lack of information regarding 51% venues.

[tarkus]

If 51% status is not public information, they need to repeal the restriction on concealed carry.

[KBCraig]

If 51% status is not public information, they need to repeal the restriction on concealed carry.

They need to do that anyway.

No private property should ever be statutorily off limits. Not bars, nor churches, nor schools, nor hospitals, nor race tracks with parimutuel betting, nor sporting events. PC 30.06 is available to all owners of private property, and it should be up to the owners to use or not use the law.