TexasCHLforum.com

In reality the property is a mix of privately omed and leased with the majority of the festival grounds owned by the wurstfest assoc. 120 Landa st is the main address and is listed as real property owned by wurstfest not the city. It was never "city owned" so carry at your own risk if they post a 30.06

Isn't the discussion at this point really about whether or not Wurstfest can subvert the meaning of the 51%? If and when they decide to post a 30.06 sign, that becomes a different discussion. If they are privately owned, they have the option to post a 30.06. If they elect not to do that, their property is open to CC.

TABC signs have specific meanings and those meanings have been codified in the TPC.

It is no our responsibility to education Wurstfest about the TPC or the TABC. If they elect not to educate themselves and are unable to carry out their own wishes because of it, too bad. It is not in our best interests to help they fix their mistakes and pointing out those mistakes is part of fixing that problem.

That said, I won't want to be the one who is "apprehended" walking past the 51% sign. It could be expensive, though it should be a situation that should be decided in the favor of the CHL. The TABC license should be the final arbiter regardless of the sign on fence. It would, of course, be icing on the cake if TABC would cite Wurstfest for deliberately posting the wrong sign (as evidenced by a CHL prosecution) at the same time. Politics being what it is, I won't hold my breath waiting on that result.

After not having my call returned yesterday, I called twice today to try and get a resolution. To me, this sounds like a shuck and jive but it just may be my experiences in Comal Co. that are tainting this.

Patricia from TABC San Antonio returned my call @ 13:00 today. I will try to represent what she told me as best I can. Note: If you look on the 30.06 website you will notice 2 addresses, one for Wurstfest, one for Wurstfest Assoc. Note they are both on Landa Park Rd.. In reality it's the same grounds.

Patricia told me that the Wurstfest Association has a renewable Blue license. However, each individual vendor has to apply for a temporary permit which is always Red. Since the Wurstfest Association is physically separate from Wurstfest (it's not but since they have different addresses TABC considers it to be so), The entire grounds is issued a Red sign.

I pointed out the confusion to conscientious chl owners who check the TABC website. She replied to always go by the posted sign. I did ask her if they had ever been witness to a establishment putting up the wrong sign, in a wrong place, etc... and that I would rather get my info from the TABC website.

Knowing how the state fair has Red license vendors display on the actual kiosk, I mentioned this to her and she said she had no idea about the state fair.

Looking forward to your sage advice. I don't think this could get any more confusing without conscious effort.

*she also told me that TABC only sends the applicable sign to each business, i.e. Blue sign for Blue license, Red for Red. This is not what I've heard.

These temporary venues are a real issue. The problem comes down to what physical area the vendor who is issued the RED license has covered for alcohol consumption in permit. If they have a beer garden area and that is what the license was issued for, then that area would be off limits. If TABC let them get a license that covers all of Wurstfest, then technically you would be in a RED area and illegally carrying. I don't know for sure if TABC will issue multiple vendors a license that overlaps physical areas and covers the entire grounds. If they do, then who trumps who, RED or BLUE?

Keith B wrote:These temporary venues are a real issue. The problem comes down to what physical area the vendor who is issued the RED license has covered for alcohol consumption in permit. If they have a beer garden area and that is what the license was issued for, then that area would be off limits. If TABC let them get a license that covers all of Wurstfest, then technically you would be in a RED area and illegally carrying. I don't know for sure if TABC will issue multiple vendors a license that overlaps physical areas and covers the entire grounds. If they do, then who trumps who, RED or BLUE?

I'm really confused. One of the other signs that I've seen in places is something to the effect that "alcohol cannot be consumed beyond this point." I always assumed that was because the TABC issued the temporary permit for a specific square footage. For example, I don't think that one can purchase a beer from one of the vendors in the Grapevine festival and wonder up and down the streets consuming it. This would cover the beer garden kind of environment. To issue the red temporary license for the whole of Grapevine seems just sloppy. I doubt that they want the alcohol consumed just anywhere but I could be wrong.

Waco1959 wrote:Below is the answer I received from TABC when I asked about a similar situation. If the bar operator was NOT at their permanent location I imagine the same would apply.

For question #2, a temporary permit was issued for that function and a
blue sign should have been posted. XXXXXXXXX itself is required
to have (51%) signs posted at its permanent licensed location. However,
411.204 of the government code, doesn't require temporary permits to
have 51% signs posted, only the blue sign is required, regardless of
sales. We will remind our temporary applicants that only the blue sign
is required.

It would be fantastic if the temporary permits could only be blue by policy or law.

That is an interesting point of view, Dori. As I read the law, it also happens to be the law. I never read it that way before, but the quote made me look at it. I also need to research it further to be sure. But the law requires the red sign only for certain licenses issued under certain chapters. And it says the blue sign may be required if it is from any other chapter. That would make all temporary license blue.

Now, all I need to do is check that the specified chapters do not allow temps.

Went tonight and had a great time! Both my wife and I carried, and noticed no signs (not even 51%). We entered at gate 3 and there were no searches.

Additionally, I would add that the grounds were well policed- so although we were equipped we had no feeling that it was necessary.

For those going, I'd recommend parking at a park and ride and taking a bus in, and don't bother taking your piece... Its unnecessary weight and concern.

ATX-Carry wrote:Went tonight and had a great time! Both my wife and I carried, and noticed no signs (not even 51%). We entered at gate 3 and there were no searches.

Additionally, I would add that the grounds were well policed- so although we were equipped we had no feeling that it was necessary.

For those going, I'd recommend parking at a park and ride and taking a bus in, and don't bother taking your piece... Its unnecessary weight and concern.

I was there most of the day and it was completely mellow. No troublemakers at all.

I played in one of the popular polka bands through about 1971. We would play at dance halls around the state, completely sold out, maybe 600 couples at a dance, and never had any trouble, despite significant drinking at all of them. Maybe it's the gemeitlekeit or something.

That my friends is the problem with the system set up in Texas. It is far to difficult to know when one is legal or not. There are 30-06, blue signs, other signs and the gun busters. There needs to be a simpler way to do this - maybe having no signs would be a good start

texanjoker wrote:That my friends is the problem with the system set up in Texas. It is far to difficult to know when one is legal or not. There are 30-06, blue signs, other signs and the gun busters. There needs to be a simpler way to do this - maybe having no signs would be a good start

The whole of 46.035 is Brady Bigotry. It's a set of rules that apply to handgun carry by people who passed a background check, that don't apply to somebody with an unknown criminal record carrying a shotgun.

ATX-Carry wrote:Went tonight and had a great time! Both my wife and I carried, and noticed no signs (not even 51%). We entered at gate 3 and there were no searches.

Additionally, I would add that the grounds were well policed- so although we were equipped we had no feeling that it was necessary.

For those going, I'd recommend parking at a park and ride and taking a bus in, and don't bother taking your piece... Its unnecessary weight and concern.

Unless of course, it becomes necessary!

The surprise at Wurstfest was not the signage but the invocation at the opening ceremony, delivered by the Baptist preacher, amidst public officials, local and state. I thought public prayer was not allowed anymore.

I note that the rev. did decline a pour from the first keg.

JALLEN wrote:The surprise at Wurstfest was not the signage but the invocation at the opening ceremony, delivered by the Baptist preacher, amidst public officials, local and state. I thought public prayer was not allowed anymore.

I note that the rev. did decline a pour from the first keg.

Baptist: His keg was in the back of the tent.

Fortunately most festivals are outdoors and the 51% prohibition for CHL only applies "on the premises of a business" which means if we stay outside of "a building or a portion of a building" we're obeying the law.