TexasCHLforum.com

Well I had what I would call my first "negative" experience last night with an HPD officer. I was on the way to the Cadillac Bar and Grill in Houston and was carrying one of my 1911s as ususal in my Tucker IWB. Well I'm walking in and my friend who has a CHL but was not carrying (he was planning on drinking I was the DD) said he didn't know if it was a 51% bar. I said I didn't know and was thinking about having him go in and check, but then I saw to Houston PD cops pulling an extra job outside. So I figure I'll just ask. Big mistake. I walk over introduce myself and well here is the conversation as best as I can remember it:

Me: "Hi hows it going (while holding my CHL out for him). I was wondering if this was a 51% bar?"
Officer: "A what? I don't know what your talking about."
Me: "A bar that derives 51% of its sales from alcohol, and therefore people with CHLs can't carry inside. I wanted to know before I went in."
Officer: "Your not allowed to carry inside a business that sales any alcohol in Texas, not even with a CHL."
Me: "Well not to start an argument, but I'm an ex-cop, and I'm pretty in tune with the law, and yes we are unless they derive 51% of their sales from the onsite consumption of alcohol. That's the whole reason for the sign so we can know which 'drinking' establishments we can go into and which we can't." (I had my red-white-and blue TCLEOSE card but did not show it to him)
Officer: "Well not if it's posted."
Me: "This establishment is posted under Penal Code 30.06?"
Officer: "Yes you can't carry a weapon inside. Hey wait are you carrying now?"
Me: "Yes I am on my right hip."
Officer: "You should really just leave that thing in your car."
Me: "Alright well I'm sorry you feel that way, but you guys can't be everywhere when we need you, I should know. Ya'll have a nice night, and take care."

I went back to my truck and de-armed simply because I did not want to push the issue. There was no 30.06 posted sign, and no 51% sign. There was the standard bold lettered "NOTICE" sign for non-CHLs. When we were eating dinner the guy kept standing directly behind our table and my friend said he kept giving him these really mennacing looks. Anyway I was just saying I should not have even asked for the rest of the night. If it was 51% I could have just turned around and walked out. I don't plan on writing any emails, or the such just letting the whole thing go. Anyway just be on the look out if you go there. I was not pleased with the guys whole attitude and demeanor. He was not busy and I was not pestering just asking one simple question.

Officer: "Your not allowed to carry inside a business that sales any alcohol in Texas, not even with a CHL."

This is an example of why I think it's a bad idea to ask LEOs for legal advice. Some are very sharp; some are misinformed or have out-of-date information.

- Jim

Officer: "Yes you can't carry a weapon inside. Hey wait are you carrying now?"

Oral notification.

I would still have to question his authoritarian answers. Mainly because I went through the instructor class seated next to an HPD training officer, and he could certainly bring the officer up to speed.

That may have been "oral notification," but was it valid?

The officer did not own the bar/restaurant, nor was he employed in the service of that particular establishment. Under what authority could he deny access? As I understand it (and I could be wrong), a janitor at the bar/restaurant would have more authority to deny access than would a police officer.

Now, if the host had said "You can't carry that in here," it WOULD be legally binding, but not for an officer. If the officer could deny access, then it logically follows that the drunk bum panhandling for change at the door could also deny access.

Anyone have any clarification on this? Am I wrong, and if so, why?

I think the P.O. was working as a bouncer, or security or some such...
in which case, he's got it.

casselthief wrote:I think the P.O. was working as a bouncer, or security or some such...
in which case, he's got it.

yep, paid to be in uniform at the door.

Now here's another great law school exam question!

TPC §30.06 allows verbal notice be given by the property owner, or "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner." I wouldn't try to argue in court that an off-duty, uniformed officer hired by the owner to provide security doesn't have "apparent authority" to give verbal notice as to the property owner’s policy regarding firearms.

However, it appears from the post that the officer was not stating the owner's policy or wishes regarding the carrying of guns on the property. It appears he was simply giving an incorrect recitation of Texas law on carrying of handguns into any establishment that sells alcohol, even by a CHL holder. A discussion of Texas law, especially a misstatement of Texas law, does not give notice of a property owner's policy regarding firearms, so a CHL would not be precluded from carrying based on these facts as presented.

In other words, if he says “no guns in here� then CHL’s can’t carry. If he says “Texas law doesn’t allow guns in here� then he’s wrong and a CHL can carry.

That was a good one.

gregthehand wrote :

I was on the way to the Cadillac Bar and Grill in Houston and was carrying one of my 1911s as ususal in my Tucker IWB. Well I'm walking in and my friend who has a CHL but was not carrying (he was planning on drinking I was the DD) said he didn't know if it was a 51% bar............

I went back to my truck and de-armed simply because I did not want to push the issue. There was no 30.06 posted sign, and no 51% sign. There was the standard bold lettered "NOTICE" sign for non-CHLs.

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section
104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;


My rule of thumb is if the establishment has the word "BAR" in it, then I think twice and LONG about carrying inside. Most of the time they are hovering around the 51% mark. Yes, I know you must look for some sort of posted sign, etc.
But that leads me to section (i) which states

Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

Therefore, I assume that means that (b)(1) does not have to give effective notice. If you know that it is primarily a drinking establishment.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: TPC §30.06 allows verbal notice be given by the property owner, or "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner." I wouldn't try to argue in court that an off-duty, uniNformed officer hired by the owner to provide security doesn't have "apparent authority" to give verbal notice as to the property owner’s policy regarding firearms.

Fixed it.

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: TPC §30.06 allows verbal notice be given by the property owner, or "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner." I wouldn't try to argue in court that an off-duty, uniNformed officer hired by the owner to provide security doesn't have "apparent authority" to give verbal notice as to the property owner’s policy regarding firearms.

Fixed it.

40FIVER

Lucky45 wrote:gregthehand wrote :

I was on the way to the Cadillac Bar and Grill

My rule of thumb is if the establishment has the word "BAR" in it, then I think twice and LONG about carrying inside. Most of the time they are hovering around the 51% mark.

Applebee's, Chili's, Bennigan's, etc., all call themselves "bar & grill", but they're restaurants that don't even approach 51% sales.

Kevin

Even easier way to tell:

If you go to a place to eat, it's probably a restaurant. If you go there to drink, it's probably a bar.

If they have a menu that fits on a postcard, or one sheet of paper 8.5x11, it's also probably a bar.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now here's another great law school exam question!

In other words, if he says “no guns in here� then CHL’s can’t carry. If he says “Texas law doesn’t allow guns in here� then he’s wrong and a CHL can carry.

That was a good one.

I agree...This is a great one!

Ah. I missed the part in the original post that said they were pulling "extra duty."

My one "nit-pick" here, aside from the distinction Mr. Cotton made, would be to ask, "Who's paying for the officers to be there, the city or the restaurant?" Which leads into my next question...

If an officer, paid by the city, is on-duty at such an establishment at the request of the owner, is his "notice" valid? Is he able to speak as though he were an employee of the restaurant, and thereby serve notice barring concealed-carry, or is he still considered an employee of the city, with no legal basis to disallow entry to anyone? If there's a grey area between the two, how are we to know exactly how much authority that officer can speak with on behalf of the establishment?


I don't hang out in bars, but this thread's got me thinking....

Thane,

I believe there may be an assumption that a commissioned law enforcement officer in this state who is hired to do "extra duty" by a private business, somehow equates that position to what the LEO's do while on the clock in their real job...

I stand to be corrected by our law enforcement contingent here in the forum, but I am only interjecting or trying to expand upon this idea...

I would say that it is an assumption that somehow a police officer who is hired to act as "security" for a private business is somehow still under their commissioned charter as a law enforcement officer...That on the surface has never added up to me for some reason over the years...I have just never had a conversation to this degree to help me figure this topic out...

Now if the uniformed officer was just hanging around, and happened to see a crime where they are compelled to protect and to serve, then yes, I believe that is proper...

I also believe, regardless of my delusions, that in most jurisdictions that you are a cop 24/7...

I would love to have our Law Enforcement contigent chime in and tell us how they think on this...They are the ones who work these extra jobs, and your input I believe will help us figure it out...