TexasCHLforum.com

Lucky45 wrote:According to PC 46.035 Unlawfal Carrying of Handgun by CHL (i).... Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor
was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

(b)(4) is on the premises of a licensed hospital or nursing home.

So if they do not post on a hospital then you can legally carry there. A bar does not have to post.

I already knew that. What part of my post were you responding to? I was talking about the "51%" sign that could be posted at hospitals. TXI already pointed out that it was an old law that is no longer enforceable. Only a properly posted 30.06 sign can restrict carry within a hospital.

And technically, a bar does have to post, assuming 51% is met. Whether they do or not is their problem, but we must still know whether they meet the 51% law and we must act accordingly.

FWIW

I've always used the smell test in the absence of 30.06 or 51%. I have no trouble going into Chili's and other similar places. But most every sports bar posted or not, I leave it in the console.

I was unaware of the change in the law regarding hospitals. If I've read this thread correctly a hospital that doesn't post 30.06 is OK to carry in?...??

Correct! If a hospital does not post a proper 30.06 sign, you are free to carry. The antiquated law about posting the "51%" sign (less the 51% lettering) used to be enough for a hospital, but now only the 30.06 sign can affect you.

Mike1951 wrote:
BTW, all of the Pappas restuarants posted in 1996 and I have never eaten at another of their establishments. (That's pretty hard to do in the Houston area.) Anyone know their current attitude?

Mrs. Anygun and I frequent the Pappas in Webster and I have never seen a sign. I have never seen a sign in any of their chains.

Of course, when I go there I am always really hungry and my low blood sugar clouds my vision.

Anygun

KBCraig wrote: . . . Yes, that's my point: the individual licensee inside will have its own "premises description" within the license, which might or might not extend to a portion of the larger premises. . . . Whatever those "licensed premises" limits are where drinking is allowed, are the same boundaries that CHLs must observe. Kevin

Hmmm . . . so say there's a bar in a restaurant, and the bar makes 51% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-premesis consumption, then it's off-limits.

BUT if the "premesis description" includes the whole building, not just the bar area, and the majority is the restaruant, then wouldn't the "51%" sale requirement apply to the whole premesis? That is, even if the bar itself makes over 51% of its sales on booze, wouldn't combining the premesis description with a big restaurant serve to "dilute" the booze percentage?

FWIW, a couple of years ago, some of the Applebee's restaurants in the San Antonio area posted 30.06 signs . . . a letter writing campaign that actually went national (!) made Applebee's corporate spank the management of San Antonio's restaurants, who then came out with a statement effectively saying that law-abiding CHL holders were welcome with their concealed handguns. Since Applebee's, much like Chili's, has a bar, I think it's safe to conclude that establishments that are primarily restaurants, rather than watering holes, are OK.

(I don't know if you're familiar with Austin, but, conversely, I'd say the great majority of the establishments along Sixth Street are off limits.)

FWIUPTTT: yes. and again yes on 6th St.

Pappas Restaurants: I've been in lots of them in different cities, and AFAIK none of them post the 30.06. They may have been confused several years ago and posted incorrect signs. I'd be very interested to know which locations, if any, do currently post a 30.06, since I work for the company.

In those days, 30.06 didn't exist. It went into effect 9/1/1997. So for the first 20 months that we had concealed carry, there were no sign specifications.

You would have had to have been keenly interested in concealed carry at that point to notice the enormous knee-jerk reaction to the new law.

It was too easy for businesses to post at no peril to them. 30.06 came about to make businesses pay a price for posting by using prime window real estate and forcing the issue to be acknowledged.

There used to be huge, orchestrated campaigns against businesses that posted and some were successful after being flooded with emails, phone calls and mail.

There was a website that maintained a list of all Texas businesses that posted against carrying concealed as reported by CHL'ers.

But I never forgot Pappas, as as they continually bought my favorite restuarants, I stopped eating there.

I live in McKinney. The city of McKinney doesn't allow "bars" in the city, meaning no establishment can derive 51% or more of their income from alcohol sales for on premises consumption. McKinney does allow businesses to allow on premises consumption, and even has places that I would consider "bars" (McKinney Tavern, Hank's Texas grill, etc.) but they sell more food than booze on the books so they aren't technically bars in the 51% sense.

I know that there are several other area cities that don't allow 51% "bars". I assume it's safe to carry in any establishment in those cities unless posted with a 30.06 sign.

I'm still not clear on the whole "carrying while intoxicated" part of the law. The way intoxicated is defined in the law I would read that if you have consumed any amount of alcohol that you could be considered intoxicated at the discretion of a police officer. In my opinion, that area of the law leaves a big gray area that could result in someone getting hit witha carrying while intoxicated deal even though they only had 1 or 2 beers. I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.

Odin wrote:I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.

I think its pretty clear. Don't drink while carrying, period. It just makes sense to me.

Odin wrote: I'm still not clear on the whole "carrying while intoxicated" part of the law. The way intoxicated is defined in the law I would read that if you have consumed any amount of alcohol that you could be considered intoxicated at the discretion of a police officer. In my opinion, that area of the law leaves a big gray area that could result in someone getting hit witha carrying while intoxicated deal even though they only had 1 or 2 beers. I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.

It's the same standard that is applied to a Public Intoxication charge. There is no required BAC for that charge either. I think a specific level for either would be a good idea.

IIRC, if they can bring you a drink to your table, then their license covers the entire restaurant. If their license only covers the "bar area" then they could not bring you a drink outside of that area nor allow you to take a drink from that area to your table.

As long as I have that understood correctly, places like Chili's, Applebee's, etc. should be clear, as they almost always sell more food than alcohol. IANAL, though. Do not take my statements as legal counsel.

kauboy wrote:

Odin wrote:I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.

I think its pretty clear. Don't drink while carrying, period. It just makes sense to me.

I disagree with that sentiment. Just because a person chooses to have a drink or two with dinner or go out for a beer or two should not mean that the person forfeits their right to self defense.

I don't think anyone should be getting drunk and carrying, but if the state trusts a person to drive a vehicle after a drink or two then I see no reason why they should be able to carry after a drink or two.

Driving is a priveledge, the ability to keep and bear arms and the self defense are rights. Many more people are killed and injured by vehicles than by firearms.

I think the law should at least set a BAC standard for concealed carry. Leaving the standard up to the individual officer who you may come into contact with is wildly variable and subject to radically different standards of enforcement and open to misapplication of the law.

Odin wrote:

kauboy wrote:

Odin wrote:I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.

I think its pretty clear. Don't drink while carrying, period. It just makes sense to me.

I disagree with that sentiment. Just because a person chooses to have a drink or two with dinner or go out for a beer or two should not mean that the person forfeits their right to self defense.

I agree. You shouldn't forfeit your right to carry in order to drink. You should forfeit your privilege to drink in order to carry. This is my opinion of course. I don't like the idea of anybody having a few beers and then having access to a car, or a gun. I personally believe that the legal intoxication limit is too high. There is only one reason to drink alcohol. To get to some degree of "buzzed". Don't tell me that people drink because its refreshing. You can drink a Sprite and get that result. And if you like the taste, whats wrong with the non-alcoholic version? The same gross taste, and no "affects". Then you don't have to worry about a BAC limit or whether or not you should be carrying.
Sorry for that. I didn't mean anything personal by it.[/RANT]

Any amount of alcohol will have a degree of effect on a person. A person would be better equipped to make decisions and their motor skills (shooting or driving) would be better without the effect of alcohol. I won't argue that point.

But life is full of choices, compromises, and calculated risks. I may be better able to make a shoot/don't shoot decision after 2 or 3 beers than the next guy can sober due to the next guy having a temperment or personality disorder. I might be better ablt to drive a car after 2 or 3 beers than the next guy can after working a 14 hours day on little sleep.

I'm not advocating drinking and carrying or drinking and driving, but I would like to see a reasonable standard for intoxication set within the law. If the legal standard is 0.0% for carrying it should be no different for driving. My issue is not with the BAC level in the law, it's the total lack of clarity and standards within the law.