Texas No-Guns Signs...

[steve4102]

....Red sign, blue sign and both?

I guy in Texas took out and active shooter the other day with his carry gun. He has a permit.

It shooting happened at a place called The Zona Caliente Sports Bar that serves alcohol.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/goo...3Gc?li=BBnb7Kz

It is my understanding that Texas carry laws dictate that if a business generates 51% or more of it's revenue from alcohol, it must post accordingly, this sign is "red" and it is a felony to carry past this sign.

The Blue sign indicates that the establishment sells alcohol, but does not meet the 51% requirement, so it is legal to carry past a "blue" sign?

According to police, this business posted both a blue and a red and the "Good Samaritan" carried past them both.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/lo...148554034.html

Did this good Samaritan violate Texas law and did he commit a felony?

[TXAZ]

There was the blue and red sign up, with the red believed to be in error.

One way or the other, this local hero won't be criminally charged.

(If he had been in Austin TX they would have prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law " as the DA announced a couple years ago. )

In the rest of Texas there is common sense.

[steve4102]

The good Samaritan had no way of knowing that the Red sign was posted in error. For all he knew the red sign was the proper sign and he carried past it anyway?

[TXAZ]

I understand he was a regular there, so that assumption may not be correct.

[mehavey]

There was both a Blue AND Red sign (the red being in error).
And since the ESTABLISHMENT was in fact "Blue," he was legal.

[johnelmore]

This is probably the most ridiculous law on the books. Its quite laughable. How about just saying you cant carry and consume alcohol at the same time? No drink and carry! There will still be drunks at a business where alcohol is consumed 35% of the time. Are they betting the majority of patrons not drinking will be a safety mechanism against the ones who are?

I honestly believe that anyone serving a responsible function, whether that be driving, carrying, etc., should NOT be consuming alcohol. This red sign, blue sign serves no purpose except for laughs and kicks.

While they are at it, they should probably make a law stating no drinking and legislating at the same time. I smell booze with this red sign, blue sign thing.

[Aguila Blanca]

Remember the statistic that there are more than 20,000 gun laws to be kept track of. This is just one example, and similar restrictions fall all over the spectrum. Some jurisdictions simply don't allow carry in establishments that sell alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. Some use a 51% of income criterion -- and not all require posting. Others allow carry in the dining room portion of restaurants with bars, but not the bar area. I think it has changed recently, but as of a few years ago North Carolina didn't allow carry anywhere in an establishment that served alcohol.

That last one tripped me up. I was visiting a friend, and we went to a Red Lobster for lunch one day. I started to unholster in order to leave my gun under the seat of the car, since I thought I remembered that carry wasn't allowed. My friend asked what I was doing. When I told him, he said, "No problem it's okay." So I carried.

When I got home, I researched it. I had been correct. What my friend meant by, "It's okay," was that he didn't think anybody would catch us. So he led me to break the law -- which did not make me very happy. I'm a generally risk-aversive person. It's fine for him to take that risk, but I thought it was unacceptable for him to have led me to break the law without expalining it to me up front.

The bottom line is, as always, there is no substitute for knowing the laws of the jurisdiction you're in. The applicable law may be silly, it may be stupid, it's likely difficult to understand -- but it's the law.

[ShootistPRS]

In Washington I can't carry in a bar though I can carry into the attached dining room. Just 6 miles away in Oregon I can carry into a bar as long as I don't consume any alcohol. In Oregon you can "open carry" in a car but in Washington carrying in a car is concealed carry.
I have carry permits for both states and am obliged to know the rules of each.
The big one for me is that even if a shop has a "no guns" sign I can legally enter with a concealed weapon in Washington. In Oregon if the sign is up you can't carry in the facility.
In the past I have carried my concealed pistol onto a federal nuclear reservation with the full knowledge of the guards - which is contrary to the law.

[steve4102]

How is the statute worded in Texas?

Does it say that carrying in an establishment that derives 51% of it's income is a felony, or does it say something about carrying passed or entering a business with a 51% sign posted is a felony?

[Lohman446]

When I originally took my class MI had laws that you could not carry in an establishment that generated more than 50% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol to be consumed on the premise. We were instructed to be cautious of that because there was no signage requirement and some places (like bowling alleys) may fall into that category if it ever came down to checking.

I was told at the time that it was not a "reasonable person should have known" standard. It was black and white - they either did or did not.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by steve4102

How is the statute worded in Texas?

Does it say that carrying in an establishment that derives 51% of it's income is a felony, or does it say something about carrying passed or entering a business with a 51% sign posted is a felony?

https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp

Weapons Warning Sign

All alcoholic beverages retailers must post one of two firearms signs. One sign is intended for use on the types of premises where a holder of a concealed hand gun license may lawfully possess a concealed hand gun: establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption or, if licensed for sale for on-premises consumption, establishments whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts. It warns that unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony.

The second sign, the 51% sign, is to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning and the warning notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

As a general rule, a true restaurant will have alcohol sales that are less than 50% of gross receipts and would be expected to post the first sign. However, if its alcohol sales are greater than 50% of gross receipts, then it would have to post the second.

The blue sign: https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/publica...es/weapons.pdf

The red (51%) sign: https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/publica.../weapons51.pdf

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Does it say that carrying in an establishment that derives 51% of it's income is a felony, or does it say something about carrying passed or entering a business with a 51% sign posted is a felony?

From the TX Penal Code § 46.035:

(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 or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, 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...

The statute says nothing about signage, so it applies whether or not the sign is posted properly and visibly. It also includes an element of recklessness, so it can apply when the LTC holder should reasonably know that the establishment is a 51% business, sign or no sign.

As I discussed in another thread about this incident, I was once almost tripped up at a live music venue where the 51% sign was mostly obscured. Fortunately, I double-checked after noticing that no food was being served, which is a typical hallmark of a 51% business.

However, if the LTC holder knows that an establishment is NOT a 51% business and is signed improperly, carry is allowed, because the signage is not the critical determining factor. This may have been the case in the recent incident, although it's not entirely clear from the news reports.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. This is not legal advice. Caveat emptor and YMMV.

[johnelmore]

That sounds the most reasonable and logical and one that I will support 100%. If you consume alcohol you cant carry. On the other hand, if you dont consume alcohol you can carry. Just like driving, flying, etc. Simple logic.

[Lohman446]

That sounds the most reasonable and logical and one that I will support 100%. If you consume alcohol you cant carry. On the other hand, if you dont consume alcohol you can carry. Just like driving, flying, etc. Simple logic.

Define consume in your use. I am unaware of any state that has a 0% BAC limit in regards to driving. I am not sure what the FAA rules are.

[ATN082268]

I could be imagining things but don't some states allow you to drink while carrying but if you do anything stupid, then you're responsible.

[zincwarrior]

This is probably the most ridiculous law on the books. Its quite laughable. How about just saying you cant carry and consume alcohol at the same time? No drink and carry! There will still be drunks at a business where alcohol is consumed 35% of the time. Are they betting the majority of patrons not drinking will be a safety mechanism against the ones who are?

I honestly believe that anyone serving a responsible function, whether that be driving, carrying, etc., should NOT be consuming alcohol. This red sign, blue sign serves no purpose except for laughs and kicks.

While they are at it, they should probably make a law stating no drinking and legislating at the same time. I smell booze with this red sign, blue sign thing.

Great now you just banned CC in restaurants-you know the whole reason CHL was enacted in Texas in the first place. The signs are fine and are meant to delineate between true bars and restaurants.

[carguychris]

There is another TX statute prohibiting an LTC holder from carrying while intoxicated, which I discuss in this recent thread. Note that there is no cut-and-dried definition of "intoxicated" in the statute, nor do I know of one in case law.

Just to be clear, the TX statute prohibiting carry while intoxicated is separate and distinct from the one prohibiting carry into a 51% business.

Originally Posted by Lohman446

I am not sure what the FAA rules are.

They are as follows:

(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft--
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
[(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.]

Pardon thread hijack, better squawk 7500.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

I could be imagining things but don't some states allow you to drink while carrying but if you do anything stupid, then you're responsible.

In Illinois the legal limit is the same as for drunk driving, .08% BAC. You're always responsible for doing something stupid, drunk or sober.

[JoeSixpack]

Define consume in your use. I am unaware of any state that has a 0% BAC limit in regards to driving. I am not sure what the FAA rules are.

In Ohio Legal BAC while carrying is 0.0% anything else you are intoxicated for the purpose of carrying.

We can carry into actual bars 100% alcohol funded, no restrictions as long as the place isn't posted off limits (private property rights remain intact)

[TXAZ]

Carguychris signalled:

Pardon thread hijack, better squawk 7500.

That was good! (Doesn't look like anyone else caught it. )

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Armed Chicagoan

In Illinois the legal limit is the same as for drunk driving, .08% BAC. You're always responsible for doing something stupid, drunk or sober.

If you shoot somebody without proper justification then you should be found guilty (and properly punished) whether you are drunk or sober at the time of the event. If that is true, then why also criminalize the drinking part of it?

[ammo.crafter]

I understand from this post that individual cities in Texas can mandate individual regulations as regards gun control.

I was under the impression the state sets all such rules and regs.

[zincwarrior]

Texas state law is controlling. I am not aware of local laws being applicable actually.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by ammo.crafter

I understand from this post that individual cities in Texas can mandate individual regulations as regards gun control.

No they can't. Local regulations are preempted in § 229.001 of the Local Government Code.

A municipality may regulate the discharge of firearms under certain conditions spelled out in § 229.002-229.004, but may not regulate transfer, sale, possession, or carry.

[FITASC]

I could be imagining things but don't some states allow you to drink while carrying

Simply stated, "Yes".