TexasCHLforum.com

smoothoperator wrote:Laws do get repealed. Maybe not often but it does happen.

Repealed yes...but the Texas Penal Code is written like the constitution... just gets amended in another section.

Do you agree those sections could have been repealed, instead of left in place but adding a sign requirement?

smoothoperator wrote:Do you agree those sections could have been repealed, instead of left in place but adding a sign requirement?

To simply remove them altogether would mess up the numbering system of the Penal code. Think it is good to leave them, as people will argue what the law is, look in the amended PC and be confused when it is not how they remembered. I am sure there are more legal reasons for doing so, but those are some practical. What WOULD help would be placing an asterisk by codes that are amended.

wgoforth wrote:To simply remove them altogether would mess up the numbering system of the Penal code. Think it is good to leave them, as people will argue what the law is, look in the amended PC and be confused when it is not how they remembered. I am sure there are more legal reasons for doing so, but those are some practical. What WOULD help would be placing an asterisk by codes that are amended.

the numbering of the Penal Code (or any other code) is not a real consideration. It does sort of mess it up, but that happens every legislative session. For example, two different bills amend the same section of code and the next printing will have that number twice, with a note saying which act changed it for that section.

And the two sections do not have to agree on what is legal or not. That is when things really can get confusing for enforcement.

I think the real reason for some of the defenses, instead of repealing a clause or section, is political. It is much easier to get some politicians to vote for a bill if the proponent says the act is still illegal, we are just giving some people a way out of the problems. So, to get the bill passed, we make compromises that cover most people but leave the act illegal.

The legislature strikes sections from existing statutes all the time. They could have completely removed the church, amusement park, hospital clause if they had wanted to. I agree that it must have been done the way it was for political reasons.

Brian

I just asked an attorney I know... and he said this means that if someone really wanted to make an issue they could, but you have a defense...so both sides should tread lightly.

Keith B wrote:I believe the one for section (k) that was put in place in 2007 was purposly written to give the option of giving the DA the capability of arguing that any reasonable person should know that a specific location was a 51% bar/tavern, gentlemens club, dance hall, etc, because it sells little to no food and makes their money only on drinks, visible sign or not.

I know of at least one bar that fits that description, but isn't 51% for two reasons. First off, they literally aren't a "51%" location -- the majority of their income is from renting the place out for private events. Secondly, they're part of a larger complex that has a general site-wide liquor license and most of the other places don't sell alcohol at all.

So if it were me, I'd point out that the DA is objectively wrong -- there's at least one proper bar in TX that isn't 51%, so you can't assume that any given bar is 51% and just not posted.

Dave2 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I believe the one for section (k) that was put in place in 2007 was purposly written to give the option of giving the DA the capability of arguing that any reasonable person should know that a specific location was a 51% bar/tavern, gentlemens club, dance hall, etc, because it sells little to no food and makes their money only on drinks, visible sign or not.

I know of at least one bar that fits that description, but isn't 51% for two reasons. First off, they literally aren't a "51%" location -- the majority of their income is from renting the place out for private events. Secondly, they're part of a larger complex that has a general site-wide liquor license and most of the other places don't sell alcohol at all.

So if it were me, I'd point out that the DA is objectively wrong -- there's at least one proper bar in TX that isn't 51%, so you can't assume that any given bar is 51% and just not posted.

Billy Bob's, by chance?

Someone tell me why/how PC 21.06 is still on the books....


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /pe.21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gigag04 wrote:Someone tell me why/how PC 21.06 is still on the books....


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /pe.21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It does say 21.06 was declared unconstitutional, but 21.01(1) still says pretty much the same thing.

mr surveyor wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I believe the one for section (k) that was put in place in 2007 was purposly written to give the option of giving the DA the capability of arguing that any reasonable person should know that a specific location was a 51% bar/tavern, gentlemens club, dance hall, etc, because it sells little to no food and makes their money only on drinks, visible sign or not.

I know of at least one bar that fits that description, but isn't 51% for two reasons. First off, they literally aren't a "51%" location -- the majority of their income is from renting the place out for private events. Secondly, they're part of a larger complex that has a general site-wide liquor license and most of the other places don't sell alcohol at all.

So if it were me, I'd point out that the DA is objectively wrong -- there's at least one proper bar in TX that isn't 51%, so you can't assume that any given bar is 51% and just not posted.

Billy Bob's, by chance?

Dunno, never been there. That budget info was kinda sorta given in confidence, so I'd rather not say in public. But you can check any venue's liquor license on the TABC's website.

C-dub wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Someone tell me why/how PC 21.06 is still on the books....


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /pe.21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It does say 21.06 was declared unconstitutional, but 21.01(1) still says pretty much the same thing.

21.01(1) is just a definition and it does not indicate the sex of the persons, the definition is used in later statues such as 21.07. I wondered the same thing about 21.06, I don't understand why they left it in.

paulhailes wrote:

C-dub wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Someone tell me why/how PC 21.06 is still on the books....


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /pe.21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It does say 21.06 was declared unconstitutional, but 21.01(1) still says pretty much the same thing.

21.01(1) is just a definition and it does not indicate the sex of the persons, the definition is used in later statues such as 21.07. I wondered the same thing about 21.06, I don't understand why they left it in.

There is the fear if you give em in inch they might insist on the right to vote, or even get married. Its only been declared unconstitutional for a couple of years. They could have taken up the issue while it was making its way through the courts.

paulhailes wrote:

C-dub wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Someone tell me why/how PC 21.06 is still on the books....


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /pe.21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It does say 21.06 was declared unconstitutional, but 21.01(1) still says pretty much the same thing.

21.01(1) is just a definition and it does not indicate the sex of the persons, the definition is used in later statues such as 21.07. I wondered the same thing about 21.06, I don't understand why they left it in.

I didn't look around, but figured if the definition was still there that it must be considered a crime somewhere in the code. I thought that listing the behavior specifically like 21.06 does was redundant, unnecessary, and clearly bias. For that matter, oh, never mind.

gigag04 wrote:Someone tell me why/how PC 21.06 is still on the books....


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /pe.21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very good question. It appears that the answer is politics.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/03/31 ... valid.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;