TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:
Actually, the first requirement is on-premise consumption. However, I don't think it has to be all on-premise. If they only make 30% of their income from on-premise, but make another 30% from carry-out, then I believe it is still a 51% establishment.

You are correct that a package store that does not sell for on-premise is not a 51% location, even though the majority of their income is from alcohol sales for off-premise consumption.

Hmmm, OK -- Are there actually establishments that serve both for on-premisis and off-premisis consumption? I don't think I've ever seen one. Can you give an example?

sjfcontrol wrote:

Keith B wrote:
Actually, the first requirement is on-premise consumption. However, I don't think it has to be all on-premise. If they only make 30% of their income from on-premise, but make another 30% from carry-out, then I believe it is still a 51% establishment.

You are correct that a package store that does not sell for on-premise is not a 51% location, even though the majority of their income is from alcohol sales for off-premise consumption.

Hmmm, OK -- Are there actually establishments that serve both for on-premisis and off-premisis consumption? I don't think I've ever seen one. Can you give an example?

I don't know of any examples personally, but believe I have heard of some country stores that sell alcohol for carry-out as well as have bar located in them. I think some of the wineries may be considered this way as they allow tasting, but sell to take home. Also, I think some of the VFW and AMVET's location sell this way too, but could be wrong.

Anyone aware of specific locations that this is the case? Where's srothstein when you need him???

I was looking at Texas alcohol laws the other day...and came across this...it's LOOOOOOONG but a good read, it address CHL and establishments where alcohol is sold and/or served, talks about onsite/offsite consumption (and the combination of the two)...it's really a good read.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/faq/general.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PUCKER wrote:Jim - I don't see anything wrong with that sign - other than, like mentioned - the blue. It doesn't apply to "us" so to speak.

I think I've posted this before, but the Grapevine BWW posts this silly sign, which, of course, doesn't mean squat to "us":

It's hard to see, it says "Buffalo Wild Wings Inc. bans guns on these premises."

I like the TABC signs, and, like I've mentioned elsewhere, it would be GREAT if there was a 30.06 sign that the State produced/provided - that way there's no question as to the validity of it.

Your example, which I deleted for brevity, is exactly the reason I started this thread. Grapevine has that sign, Plano has a (non-TABC) sign which basically says that CHLs can carry - I actually see that sign as a "Y'all are welcome here!" sign while the Grapevine version makes me feel that they discriminate against law abiding citizens.

jimlongley wrote:I was under the impression that the "sign = blue" licensees had to use the official TABC blue sign - I could be wrong - this sign is the one that other retain establishments use.

TABC does not require any store to post the specific signs TABC gives out. They will give them out to any licensee who wants them but the licensee can also have his own signs printed. This is valid as long as the licensee has the information required on the sign. So, the missing logo does not invalidate the sign, either on this one or the 51% sign.

sjfcontrol wrote:Hmmm, OK -- Are there actually establishments that serve both for on-premisis and off-premisis consumption? I don't think I've ever seen one. Can you give an example?

Yep, I can. Almost all of the beer joints that are beer only have a license that allows for both on and off premise consumption. Many wineries also have this permission, as someone else already posted. The specific license type is called a BG and is issued under Chapter 25 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code. [/url=http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#25.01]As can be seen here[/url] the law specifically allows them to sell for on and off-premises.

The problem I have long had with TABC and the 51% rule is that TABC does not calculate it properly. The law says 51% from on premises consumption "as determined by TABC" and TABC does not determine the location of the sales. TABC uses the easy way of assuming that it is a 51% location if they have an on-premise license and meet the 51% rule. They simply ask the retailer how much of their revenue was from alcohol, how much from food, and how much from everything else. So, a BG would be illegal to carry in, even if they received only 25% of their revenue from alcohol on premise sales if they also had 26% from off-premise. And you can move those numbers around however you want up to the 50% line for on-premise. The results would still be the same.

The only part I am not sure of is how much of a problem this really is. I don't know of a BG that would really not get 51% from on-premise. They might sell 10% for off premise if they are lucky and probably get 90% from alcoholic beverages overall.

OK -- Thanks for the information. Up until this thread, I was unaware that such establishments existed, or how it did (or didn't) affect the calculations. Very good info!

srothstein wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I was under the impression that the "sign = blue" licensees had to use the official TABC blue sign - I could be wrong - this sign is the one that other retain establishments use.

TABC does not require any store to post the specific signs TABC gives out. They will give them out to any licensee who wants them but the licensee can also have his own signs printed. This is valid as long as the licensee has the information required on the sign. So, the missing logo does not invalidate the sign, either on this one or the 51% sign.

Thanks, Steve, I was operating under a misapprehension.

Thanks Steve, that confirms what I was pretty sure was correct in my post above.

Have I told you lately how much we appreciate you and the other experts we have here on the board?? You guys are a super help in grounding some of these discussions on specific topics. Thanks for being here!!

Keith B wrote:Thanks Steve, that confirms what I was pretty sure was correct in my post above.

Have I told you lately how much we appreciate you and the other experts we have here on the board?? You guys are a super help in grounding some of these discussions on specific topics. Thanks for being here!!

Let me second that. Thank you all for your help and clarification of "muddy" issues. Your input is deeply appreciated.

My thanks to srothstein too. I admit some confusion until I realized "BG" was a license code. I kept inserting "Bad Guy" every time I read "BG".

PUCKER wrote:Jim - I don't see anything wrong with that sign - other than, like mentioned - the blue. It doesn't apply to "us" so to speak.

I think I've posted this before, but the Grapevine BWW posts this silly sign, which, of course, doesn't mean squat to "us":

It's hard to see, it says "Buffalo Wild Wings Inc. bans guns on these premises."



I like the TABC signs, and, like I've mentioned elsewhere, it would be GREAT if there was a 30.06 sign that the State produced/provided - that way there's no question as to the validity of it.

This exact sign is at the new Tomball location as well. I am not about to tell them that it does not keep CHL holders from carrying there. I think it is just to make the sheeple feel more comfortable. I still don't understand that mentality, but I will tolerate it.

shortysboy09 wrote:I thought that having a CHL means we are in " Licensed Possession" of a firearm? That sign specifically states " Unlicensed Possession". I have seen that sign posted at places like Chipoltle as well due to the fact they sell alcohol.

I may be wrong here, but it seems that sign doesn't apply to a CHL holder. Can anyone confirm that thought?

This looks like the exact same sign that is posted at the entrance to all Wally Worlds. I've always took it to mean that CHL holders are welcome to carry (licensed), but "unlicensed carry" is a felony. I'll take a pic of the Wal-Mart sign this evening to compare.

Picture of same "unlicensed possesion" sign at Wal-Mart. It's the same sign...

I see that sign a lot here. Kroger's, the convenience store down the street, Wal-Mart. A very common sign. I interpret it as "CHL's welcome.