The 51% law at River Walk

[GaryAdrian]

Hello everyone,
My wife and I are going on Vacation to the San Antonio River Walk.
Does anyone know the answer to this question?
If we sit "outside" to have a drink and not "inside of the building" as they have many places along the river walk, how does one know about the 51% rule?
Or do we just avoid such places that we are unsure about? Most places serve food and drink, not that we are planning to drink and carry, but a single glass of red wine goes very well with a steak dinner.

I don't drink that much to begin with. I have had a six pack go out of date. I just want to make sure this Vacation is one of the better ones.

[dicion]

After september 1st, as long as you don't pass a 51% sign to sit there, it's legal.

Until then, if the location is a 51% Business, sign or not, it's technically illegal.

[srothstein]

One technical correction to dicion's post:

It is not legal after Sep 1 to go in if there is no 51% sign. It is still illegal and you may be arrested for this. The missing sign is a defense to prosecution. While, for all intents and purposes, the effect is the same, the technical difference can be important. Remember the dispute over the original car carry bill, with the presumption of traveling? That was also a defense, and not an exception.

On the primary question of the illegality of the sidewalk, I have to admit that you are in a gray area. The Alcoholic Beverage Code and the Penal Code define premises in two different manners. The ABC says that the whole are covered by the license, which includes the parking lot and sidewalks and such, are part of the premises. This allows them to serve the drinks there (in many cases it is illegal to serve outside the licensed premise). But the Penal Code defines the premise as the building itself. It specifically excludes the parking lot and sidewalks. It also does not mention outdoor patios that are fenced in as either part of the premises or not. So, since it would be illegal to carry on the licensed premise, which definition takes precedence?

I have to admit that the TABC and the police in general have always gone with the ABC code definition but that there may be no legal basis for this. Until there is a test case through an appellate court, we really do not know. So far, all the CHL's I know have shown more sense than to be the test case. I would advise against carrying in the patio area of a licensed premise, but remembering the definition gray area may help if you make an honest mistake.

[Dexdahex]

I believe there is a NO Alcohol Period if you are carring...

[Liberty]

I believe there is a NO Alcohol Period if you are carring...

This isn't true. There are some unscrupulous instructors giving out bad information. Many of us believe it is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean it is illegal.

[Purplehood]

I personally would never worry about passing through that particular area while carrying, but I wouldn't stop at any of the 51% establishments inside or outside.

[GaryAdrian]

Thanks for all your input. Information is allways good.
Thanks guys.

[jamullinstx]

Steve,

I'm surprised that the TABC and police have adopted the alcoholic beverage code's definition of premises when deciding whether to charge a CHL for carrying improperly on the "premises". The ABC code, IMHO, defines where the business' license allows them to sell alcohol. The TPC defines where a CHL crosses the line when carrying. There shouldn't be any gray area. It seems perfectly clear to me and only possible to create gray area by willfully misinterpreting the clear language and intent of the two codes.

[timdsmith72]

I believe there is a NO Alcohol Period if you are carring...

This isn't true. There are some unscrupulous instructors giving out bad information. Many of us believe it is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean it is illegal.

Our instructor told us there is no "Legal Limit" per se like there is with driving. The law states that it is illegal to carry wile intoxicated. This means it's up to the officer to decide whether you are intoxicated or not and it would be his word against yours....

I believe this is the bit that addresses this:

(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the
license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is
concealed.

[TrueFlog]

Hello everyone,
My wife and I are going on Vacation to the San Antonio River Walk.
Does anyone know the answer to this question?
If we sit "outside" to have a drink and not "inside of the building" as they have many places along the river walk, how does one know about the 51% rule?
Or do we just avoid such places that we are unsure about? Most places serve food and drink, not that we are planning to drink and carry, but a single glass of red wine goes very well with a steak dinner.

I don't drink that much to begin with. I have had a six pack go out of date. I just want to make sure this Vacation is one of the better ones.

If you're having a steak dinner there, it seems unlikely that it would be a 51% location. (Unless it's really good wine or really lousy steak.) That's certainly no guarantee, but I've never seen a restaurant posted 51% that wasn't pretty obviously a bar.

[GaryAdrian]

I agree.
A bar is a bar. But there are bars that serve food as well.
I guess the thing to do is: "When in doubt, get out!"



BTW, I'll have a beer for you guys next week,

[apostate]

Our instructor told us there is no "Legal Limit" per se like there is with driving. The law states that it is illegal to carry wile intoxicated. This means it's up to the officer to decide whether you are intoxicated or not and it would be his word against yours....

There's no lower limit for driving either. If you're impaired, I believe you're intoxicated whether you're driving or carrying. By impaired I mean "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body."

In addition, if you have "an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more" then you're intoxicated for the purposes of Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code (including Sec. 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED) even if you're not impaired. However, it's unclear if that applies to Sec. 46.035 especially as there seems no requirement to submit to a BAC test if you're not driving.

[srothstein]

Steve,

I'm surprised that the TABC and police have adopted the alcoholic beverage code's definition of premises when deciding whether to charge a CHL for carrying improperly on the "premises". The ABC code, IMHO, defines where the business' license allows them to sell alcohol. The TPC defines where a CHL crosses the line when carrying. There shouldn't be any gray area. It seems perfectly clear to me and only possible to create gray area by willfully misinterpreting the clear language and intent of the two codes.

You need to remember that there are a lot of old cops out there (like me for one). We learned our laws a long time ago and it can be hard to change. The law made it a felony to carry on a licensed premise before we had CHL's. The Penal Code definition of premises as a building only came into being with CHL's in 95. Case law prior to that clealry upheld the parking lots as part of the premises.

So, I think the courts would go with the Penal Code definition, and a decent defense attorney could make a strong case for it. But that is all part of the trial later. Some of the younger cops may go with the Penal Code also, not having learned the old way. but many others got it firmly entrenched back then. I know several were shocked last session when I said anyone could have the weapon in their car in the bar parking lot, but I managed to convince them (I think). I think I can convince most of them on this one too, but I am not 100% positive.

So far, I have warned them that this is still a gray area and most of them like to stay out of that area also. It is amazing how few cops like to see their names on Supreme Court decisions - or any other court case for that matter.

[pedalman]

To relate this to the 51% issue: I am a part-time musician. The majority of places where I work have a red sign. I know that I do not carry inside these establishments. But I feel no fear or guilt in locking my sidearm in my steel lockbox inside my vehicle. Reasonable people would agree that the weapon would NOT be on or about my person at this stage.

My day job is with a community college. State statute prohibits me from carrying in there. But I feel no guilt in parking on the street beside my building. I'm not looking over my shoulder for the "bad cop" who is just waiting to pounce on me.

People, we are losing sight of a bigger picture. We have had our training. We also learn after the course. Well, at least those of us who hang around here. We read up on cases involving CHL holders. We share information.

Statistically, we behave better than the general public. We should not feel guilty about carrying under the authority of a CHL. We know that concealed means concealed. The vast majority of us comport ourselves properly when armed, and make a good faith effort not to do something stupid. I would like to think that the majority of us know how to properly act when approached by police in a traffic stop or other encounter.

We are not the bad guys. Neither are the police. I will grant that both factions may have a bad apple or two. But this should not taint the overall situation. I will admit to feeling trepidation when first carrying. But it's been almost a year now. I can confidently walk past police officers and not feel dread. I've reached that point where arming up is as natural as putting my wallet in my pocket.

We know the law, and we do our best to obey it. The CHL does not make us heroes or supercops. It makes us prudent citizens who are willing to defend ourselves against evil, instead of waiting for others to do it for us. Personally, I find this liberating.

Life's circumstances are complicated. We can only make so many contingency plans. We can't cover all the bases. For me, there may be a situation in the future where I end up "taking the ride". If it happens, I will deal with it. I will do my best to remain calm, and not say anything stupid. I will retain an attorney, and deal with it.

In the meantime, I'm not going to be a What-If-Monkey (WIM). We are free citizens. We are not subjects.

[mikeintexas]

Well said pedalman!