TexasCHLforum.com

The wife and I were going to go to Floyd's Cajun Seafood Restaurant (formerly Don's) in Beaumont tonight until I saw the 51% sign posted on the front door. I'm going to contact TABC Monday they are newly opened and probably just posted the wrong sign.

MoJo wrote:The wife and I were going to go to Floyd's Cajun Seafood Restaurant (formerly Don's) in Beaumont tonight until I saw the 51% sign posted on the front door. I'm going to contact TABC Monday they are newly opened and probably just posted the wrong sign.

I went to Floyd's several weeks ago noticed the sign and commented here. I did call TABC in Austin and they did tell me that they thought the sign was inappropriate and that they would call the owner.

We discussed it on this forum and I came to several conclussions

• It is not Don's any more the fod isn't as good as it used to be, and the place is over priced for what it is.

• The sign itself is not regulatory. Just because the sign says it is a 51% Doesn't mean that the place is really a 51%. Stay away from the bar area and you are legal. There is no way that Floyd's a 51% place."

• It is apparent they don't want our bussiness. I will be happy to oblige them

I go to Floyd's in Beaumont frequently and saw the sign as well. It doesn't make since to me either. No way they make 51% on alcohol.

FWIW, I think the food is as good or better than Don's. Expecially the gumbo. That's why I go there often.

Hope they get the sign thing taken care of. I am going to ask Floyd next time I see him.

If you want good gumbo, try Esther's under the Rainbow Bridge (Pt. Arthur/Groves side). I like to go there every now and then when I visit my family in Bridge City.

Well I finally got a chance to talk to the owner who said that only about 20% of their sales is alcohol. He said that the TABC sent them the sign and that they were required to post it even though his application stated 80/20 on the food vs. alcohol sales.

He also thinks it helps keep the criminals out....yeah, riiiiggghtttt!!!! He seemed nervous that I asked him about it and might report him to the TABC. Again, his excuse was that TABC sent the sign to him and required that he post it.

Well, as long as he doesn't put up the 30.06 sign I will still go there.

glock75 wrote:Well I finally got a chance to talk to the owner who said that only about 20% of their sales is alcohol. He said that the TABC sent them the sign and that they were required to post it even though his application stated 80/20 on the food vs. alcohol sales.

He also thinks it helps keep the criminals out....yeah, riiiiggghtttt!!!! He seemed nervous that I asked him about it and might report him to the TABC. Again, his excuse was that TABC sent the sign to him and required that he post it.

Well, as long as he doesn't put up the 30.06 sign I will still go there.

This appears to be a very common occurrence. My fiancee saw a 51% sign at a VET'S OFFICE about 5 years ago when she was visiting her dad in Ft. Worth, so I wouldn't put it past anyone to give it a shot.

glock75 wrote:Well I finally got a chance to talk to the owner who said that only about 20% of their sales is alcohol. He said that the TABC sent them the sign and that they were required to post it even though his application stated 80/20 on the food vs. alcohol sales.

He also thinks it helps keep the criminals out....yeah, riiiiggghtttt!!!! He seemed nervous that I asked him about it and might report him to the TABC. Again, his excuse was that TABC sent the sign to him and required that he post it.

Well, as long as he doesn't put up the 30.06 sign I will still go there.

If he has any sign saying stay out if you have a CHL then I'd stay out. There are many good restaurants that don't try to keep CHLs out.

Besides, legal or not, if an overzelous LEO finds you in there while you are packing you will go to jail and need the services of an attorney. You'll win but you'll loose.

[/b]

MoJo wrote:

glock75 wrote:Well I finally got a chance to talk to the owner who said that only about 20% of their sales is alcohol. He said that the TABC sent them the sign and that they were required to post it even though his application stated 80/20 on the food vs. alcohol sales.

He also thinks it helps keep the criminals out....yeah, riiiiggghtttt!!!! He seemed nervous that I asked him about it and might report him to the TABC. Again, his excuse was that TABC sent the sign to him and required that he post it.

Well, as long as he doesn't put up the 30.06 sign I will still go there.

If he has any sign saying stay out if you have a CHL then I'd stay out.

Good for you; not I.

Besides, legal or not, if an overzelous LEO finds you in there while you are packing you will go to jail and need the services of an attorney. You'll win but you'll loose.

Bologna.

[/b][/quote]

MoJo wrote: If he has any sign saying stay out if you have a CHL then I'd stay out. There are many good restaurants that don't try to keep CHLs out.

Besides, legal or not, if an overzelous LEO finds you in there while you are packing you will go to jail and need the services of an attorney. You'll win but you'll loose.

[/b]

Well, i wouldnt stay out due to "any sign", but if i saw a 51% and knew that they couldnt possiblly get 51% of their sales from alcohol id still stay out, that ones too risky.

txinvestigator -

In my CHL class, I got pretty much the same opinion from the instructor, basically that if a place has ANY sort of notice meant to keep firearms out, you are at risk of prosecution if you carry in there, at least here in Houston/Harris Co. He said that, although you're not technically breaking the law, the prosecutor is likely going to ask you on the stand something like "Didn't you see the sign?", then you'd say "Yes, but since it didn't meet the legal requirements, I carried anyway." Then he'd say "So you KNEW that the owner did not want guns carried in his business, regardless of whether the signs were worded a certain way!".

This was the point in class where I said to myself "then why the heck am I getting a CHL if I have to consider whether I want to risk arrest and prosecution (and several thousands of dollars) when I walk into ANY place?".

Maybe you or someone else can shed some light on this bologna/baloney, or whatever type of luncheon meat it turns out to be . I've found very little information on cases where CHL holders where arrested and/or prosecuted for any issues related to carrying.

Appreciate your input as always.

I have read elsewhere that TABC sends a signage package, including some that may not be appropriate for a particular establishment.

If that is true, it would explain incorrect signs being posted due to ignorance of the proprietor.

kanders wrote:txinvestigator -

In my CHL class, I got pretty much the same opinion from the instructor, basically that if a place has ANY sort of notice meant to keep firearms out, you are at risk of prosecution if you carry in there, at least here in Houston/Harris Co. He said that, although you're not technically breaking the law, the prosecutor is likely going to ask you on the stand something like "Didn't you see the sign?", then you'd say "Yes, but since it didn't meet the legal requirements, I carried anyway." Then he'd say "So you KNEW that the owner did not want guns carried in his business, regardless of whether the signs were worded a certain way!".

This was the point in class where I said to myself "then why the heck am I getting a CHL if I have to consider whether I want to risk arrest and prosecution (and several thousands of dollars) when I walk into ANY place?".

Maybe you or someone else can shed some light on this bologna/baloney, or whatever type of luncheon meat it turns out to be . I've found very little information on cases where CHL holders where arrested and/or prosecuted for any issues related to carrying.

Appreciate your input as always.

To prove a case the prosecutor must prove ALL elements of the crime. If there was no 30.06 notice posted, then he cannot prove you received notice.

kanders wrote:txinvestigator -

Ithe prosecutor is likely going to ask you on the stand something like "Didn't you see the sign?", then you'd say "Yes, but since it didn't meet the legal requirements, I carried anyway." Then he'd say "So you KNEW that the owner did not want guns carried in his business, regardless of whether the signs were worded a certain way!".

Which is why in most cases such as this the defendant doesn't take the stand.

Liberty wrote:

kanders wrote:txinvestigator -

Ithe prosecutor is likely going to ask you on the stand something like "Didn't you see the sign?", then you'd say "Yes, but since it didn't meet the legal requirements, I carried anyway." Then he'd say "So you KNEW that the owner did not want guns carried in his business, regardless of whether the signs were worded a certain way!".

Which is why in most cases such as this the defendant doesn't take the stand.

How can the defendant be stopped from taking the stand?

jimlongley wrote: How can the defendant be stopped from taking the stand?

Others can be called to the stand to establish that no 30.06 sign was posted; the defendant can exercise his fifth amendment right to refuse to testify as to whether he saw any sign at all.