TexasCHLforum.com

I agree with Keith because he's the coolest dude I know!!!! (For today only)

If the bar was in a strip center I world just park down the way. I think 30;06 signs dont usually inclued parking lots a s primises. But 51% I remember my instructor saying promises were the parking lot owned by the bar. Im not really sure. Correct me if Im wrong.

It may be that the charges should be dropped or they should be acquitted. The concealment requirement of the MPA is not an issue because the men were not in the cars, thus the guns were not "on or about their person." The TPC §46.035(b)(1) prohibition that applies to CHLs is limited only to the "premises" so it does not apply to the parking lot.

I'm not sure if prohibition for unlicensed persons applies only to the "premises" as defined in the Penal Code, or if it applies to the entire property. Steve would be in a better position to answer that question.

Chas.

Steve explains the parking lot thing a little better here in this post http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1&#p817741" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

srothstein wrote:

CainA wrote:

srothstein wrote: Actually, the parking lot is part of the licensed premises and this is where quite a bit of the case law on weapons on licensed premises comes from. But, the non-chl would not be committing a crime because the law allows guns in cars. For non-51% locations, the law on licensed premises is still part of 46.02 and we know that allows car carry now. The non-chl is not affected by 46.035 since he cannot carry outside of the car anyway.

I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if this has come up.

What if the licensed premises share's or has a common parking lot with some other (non licensed) business(es), does that whole parking lot become off limits then?

This is a really gray area of the law. As far as I know, it depends on whether the businesses have separate addresses or all one address. If there are separate addresses, like a strip mall, the part of the parking lot that would be in front of the bar (or alongside it if it is the corner store) would be part of the licensed premise. Of course, the parking lot could be marked off the license if they applied with it drawn that way. This is common for businesses that have one address, like a mall.

And while it was pointed out that the gun was legal in the car, even if it was a 51% location, there is one possible time that this could bite you. If there is a bar in a strip center, the parking lot might be included in the license. If you happened to park in front of the bar and then get out of the car to go to the dry cleaner next door while still carrying your pistol, you would be technically in violation of the law. It is one of the cases where it is highly unlikely to ever come up, but it should be noted, just in case.

Keith B wrote:

fickman wrote:

Keith B wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Keith B wrote:The parking lot of a club may be off-limits for a CHL holder if the club is 51%. However, MPA should cover the gun IF they keep the gun covered.

Parking lot ??? How is a parking lot covered by a liquid license (51%) issued for the club?

See this post from our resident expert srothstein http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1&#p815101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that it might be part of the "licensed property", but leaving the firearm concealed in the vehicle at such a location would not be a violation.

Did you read my part that you quoted? I said, MPA covers it if the gun stays covered. But you can't carry on the parking lot if it is part of the licensed premises.

Yes, I did. I was taking that information and applying it to the story in the OP.

The guns were in plain sight.

priusron wrote:The guns were in plain sight.

Yep, that was established earlier, hence the arrest.

Keith B wrote:

priusron wrote:The guns were in plain sight.

Yep, that was established earlier, hence the arrest.

And then the note from Chas... , implying arrested for what? What was the crime committed? The required elements don't seem to fit the event.. But as we all know, you may beat the wrap, but still take the ride.

E.Marquez wrote:

Keith B wrote:

priusron wrote:The guns were in plain sight.

Yep, that was established earlier, hence the arrest.

And then the note from Chas... , implying arrested for what? What was the crime committed? The required elements don't seem to fit the event.. But as we all know, you may beat the wrap, but still take the ride.

It boils down to premsises. For Texas ABC code premises includes the parking lot if part of the licensed area per the TABC drawing by the licensee. For Texas Penal Code premises is defined only as the building. The article said they were arrested for possesion on licensed premises, so if the parking lot was a 51% location, since the guns were in plain sight, they may be charged under TABC code vs. 46.02 which requires it to be 'on or about' the person.

Keith B wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Keith B wrote:

priusron wrote:The guns were in plain sight.

Yep, that was established earlier, hence the arrest.

And then the note from Chas... , implying arrested for what? What was the crime committed? The required elements don't seem to fit the event.. But as we all know, you may beat the wrap, but still take the ride.

It boils down to premsises. For Texas ABC code premises includes the parking lot if part of the licensed area per the TABC drawing by the licensee. For Texas Penal Code premises is defined only as the building. The article said they were arrested for possesion on licensed premises, so if the parking lot was a 51% location, since the guns were in plain sight, they may be charged under TABC code vs. 46.02 which requires it to be 'on or about' the person.

ok good point, thank you.

Are these drawing available in the TABC web site? If so, I have not seen them linked or attached.. but will go look.
If not... we truly are still at the mercy officer (ADA, DA, Judge) whim and "feelings' personal "understanding"...of not knowing if we are legal or not even NEAR a bar or place that sells alcohol..
Heck I thought I was reasonable well informed.. and wrongly understood.. If it was a red 51% location, that was the building.. not a parking lot outside the building..
I could see if the parking lot was gated off, roped off, restricted in some way, to check for ID's and or serve on the parking lot.. that it to might be part of the off limits area indicated by a red 51% license.

It never occurred to me that an open parking area might somehow be included in the off limits area, even though it's not a controlled, restricted lot.

Truly, I have not been in a stand alone bar, in.. well more then 20 years I guess.. bars part of or inside other business yes, sports bars, yes, But just a bar ,, no

priusron wrote:The guns were in plain sight.

I am curious if there is some interpretation to be made with that. Were they partially covered or actually in full view? It only makes a difference to me if the gun was mostly covered, but some part managed to stick out from under the covering or something. However, "plain view" means completely uncovered to most.

They were exposed enough to be seen through a closed window. Also one of them was charged with possession of stolen property.

Keith B wrote:

ricor wrote:Many times people are stopped from leaving the licensed establishment with alcohol. Would that not mean that the license does not extend to the parking lot? Just a thought.

It depends on how TABC has established their license and the defined area of the bar. The parking lot MAY be part of the licensed premises, and then it may not. If the property is wholly owned by the bar, then possible. If it is a resturant in a mall area for instance, then it may not be.

Can you cite any case law, or statute references, supporting the supposition that the manner in which TABC establishes a license has been held to modify the definition of "premises" as it would pertain to a CHL holder? The Penal Code defines a premises quite clearly:

• "PC 46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

I realize that a TABC-blessed bar could be established smack in the middle of a parking lot and the bar would be off limits, but the parking lot itself would remain, well, a parking lot. IMHO, anyway.

However, this may be a nuance that I need to include in my classes because I reference this section of code several times.

Thanks!

Can someone please tell us the specific TABC law that applies? Or admit they can't and stop with the smoke and mirrors.

nightmare wrote:Can someone please tell us the specific TABC law that applies? Or admit they can't and stop with the smoke and mirrors.

I will leave that to srothstein who is a retired TABC officer and instructor. But read his post that I quoted above for his interpretation.

Some people think there's a federal law prohibiting CHL in banks.