Is there any movement to change the 51% restrictions?

[atxgun]

Of course it's not that I want to go to a bar and get hammered while carrying.

The other week I was out with some friends at a park. I had taken the bus down b/c it was convenient I and I hate finding parking around that area. Towards the end of the day "let's get a bit to eat at place X" came up. It sounded good, until we walked there and I was staring down a 51% sign through the front door. All of a sudden "oh sorry guys, i forgot i have this thing, I've got to go...".

I had to leave b/c of the 51% and i couldn't stash it in my car as I had taken the bus down. I felt deprived of being able to enjoy my life with friends <sadface>.

I had actually been to that place before sans carrying and it never seemed like a 51% place to me. Of course when you are carrying you're on high guard for that stuff which is why I noticed it.

In PA it's legal to open carry into a full on bar (not to say they wont tell you to leave), but point being I just want to be able to enjoy the company of my friends legally and sober, even if they happen to sell booze there. Is there any legislation in the works to change this 51% restriction?

[seamusTX]

No, and given the attitudes about alcohol in Texas, I doubt there ever will be.

We're lucky it's only 51% on-premises locations. Many states prohibit carrying weapons anywhere alcohol is sold.

- Jim

[pedalman]

Which place was this? Does this place actually have a full dinner menu, or is it just "pub grub"?

Only the license of the establishment will tell you for sure if it is designated 51% on-premises consumption or not.

[Oldgringo]

No, and given the attitudes about alcohol in Texas, I doubt there ever will be.

- Jim

If one doubts the veracity of Jim's comment, visit a community that has a beer/wine/alcohol vote on the current ballot. The outright lies and {stuff} the prohibitionists come up with to stifle a vote that is actually about sales tax revenue is er, uh ...mind boggling and faith challenging, to say the least. Can you guess who is leading the charge of the prohibitionists?

[Liberty]

No, and given the attitudes about alcohol in Texas, I doubt there ever will be.

- Jim

If one doubts the veracity of Jim's comment, visit a community that has a beer/wine/alcohol vote on the current ballot. The outright lies and {stuff} the prohibitionists come up with to stifle a vote that is actually about sales tax revenue is er, uh ...mind boggling and faith challenging, to say the least. Can you guess who is leading the charge of the prohibitionists?

The liquor store owners in neighboring towns and countys?

[Oldgringo]

No, and given the attitudes about alcohol in Texas, I doubt there ever will be.

- Jim

If one doubts the veracity of Jim's comment, visit a community that has a beer/wine/alcohol vote on the current ballot. The outright lies and {stuff} the prohibitionists come up with to stifle a vote that is actually about sales tax revenue is er, uh ...mind boggling and faith challenging, to say the least. Can you guess who is leading the charge of the prohibitionists?

The liquor store owners in neighboring towns and countys?

Not openly, but the money for the misleading signs and the false statements in the recorded telephone calls is definitely coming from an earthly source. The charge itself is led by the self-righteous astride the blindingly white steed of goodness.

[seamusTX]

Bootleggers are always in on these efforts to keep municipalities dry.

- Jim

[boomerang]

I just wish off duty cops had the same restrictions as taxpayers with a CHL. Whether both groups get prohibited from 51% places or both groups are allowed in 51% places don't matter as much to me as having equal protection under the law. Same with the intoxication rule.

[seamusTX]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

There is no concept in Texas law of a LEO being on-duty or off-duty. They have to be able to enter bars when they are on-duty. Therefore, they can also enter when they are off-duty. (This also applies to officials like judges and DAs.)

However, most police agencies have very strict standards for officers' behavior while off-duty. An officer here told me that if they are found to have more than 0.01% blood alcohol, they will be fired. That's something like one beer an hour.

For the record, I would abolish PC 46.035 in a heartbeat, and nearly all of Chapter 46 as well. But political reality is what it is.

- Jim

[boomerang]

There is no concept in Texas law of a LEO being on-duty or off-duty.

If so, there would be no need for the "engaged in the actual discharge of ... duties" language anywhere in the law for Peace Officers. On the flip side, to improve equal protection under the law, all it would take is to add that language to more sections that exempt Peace Officers from laws.

Also, if they're always on duty, how can they work second jobs? Wouldn't that be taking a bribe to get paid by a 3rd party to do something on duty?

However, most police agencies have very strict standards for officers' behavior while off-duty. An officer here told me that if they are found to have more than 0.01% blood alcohol, they will be fired. That's something like one beer an hour.

The discussions in (almost) all 30.06 threads show there's a difference for many people betwen the threat of prosecution and the threat of losing a job.

[seamusTX]

There is no concept in Texas law of a LEO being on-duty or off-duty.

If so, there would be no need for the "engaged in the actual discharge of ... duties" language anywhere in the law for Peace Officers.

I don't claim to know every jot and tittle of that aspect of the law, because most of it does not apply to me. However, it seems that most of it is concerned with real criminal offenses committed by or against LEOs, such as PC 22.02(b)(2).

Also, if they're always on duty, how can they work second jobs?

I didn't say they are on duty at all times. They are LEOs every second that their commission is in effect, so PC 46.15(a) applies to them at all times, along with many sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

And regardless of the exact wording of the law, assaulting an off-duty police officer who is working security at a private establishment or event will result in a charge of assaulting an officer. It happened here last year.

The discussions in (almost) all 30.06 threads show there's a difference for many people betwen the threat of prosecution and the threat of losing a job.

Yes, and I have said many times, that is idiotic nonsense.

A first-offense class A misdemeanor might cost you a couple of thousand dollars in legal fees and fines. Such offenses rarely result in jail time and are usually discharged after probation.

For a police officer, losing his TCLEOSE certification means the end of his career, for which he may have gone to college at his own expense and worked for peanuts in a succession of podunk towns.

For anyone, being fired could result in extended unemployment, bankruptcy, and divorce.

- Jim

[boomerang]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Bootleggers are always in on these efforts to keep municipalities dry.

- Jim

Joe Kennedy is the only rum-runner I know of that did well after the repeal of prohibition.

Back to your question atxgun. There is no bill that would change this prohibition currently filed. As others have said, a head-on attack on this provision would be guaranteed to fail. However, hopefully 2011 will see the introduction of a bill that would accomplish this along with many other things. That said, even when it was discussed this session, a lot of people in Austin were saying, "but what about bars?"

Chas.

[atxgun]

No, and given the attitudes about alcohol in Texas, I doubt there ever will be.

We're lucky it's only 51% on-premises locations. Many states prohibit carrying weapons anywhere alcohol is sold.

- Jim

Well you might be surprised. At the last executive committee meeting of the Travis County republican party we passed resolutions against the local police chief's plans to implement training police officers to become phlembotomists for forced blood draw of DWI suspects as well as a resolution against upcoming state DWI checkpoint legislation. I won't go into the details about all that here, and sure, resolutions don't do much beside show the sentiment of a body. But it was shown there is opposition to these initiatives and people were able to look past the blinding dogma that drunks are drunks and we shouldn't help them
to object on constitutional and liberty concerns.

[seamusTX]

I'm not saying there aren't libertarians in Texas. There are plenty. But there are also teetotalers who are a voting block in many districts.

The issues that you are talking about are civil rights issues, namely arrest, search, and seizure.

The regulation of alcoholic beverages is very rigid in Texas. People who have lived here all their life don't realize how rigid. In most states you can buy liquor at almost any grocery store up to 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and it's much easier for a restaurant to get an on-premises beer and wine permit.

(I was really surprised when I moved here that it was still legal to drink in a moving car. Texas must have been the last state to prohibit that activity.)

- Jim