Was the bar 51% marked? Maybe it was just half-assed marked like they do in some places in Texas (and thus could not prohibit carry)? Maybe the bar spent the extra dough for a food and beverage permit which allows bars to opt out of the 51%?
...
the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission must determine if the business receives 51% or more of gross receipts from the sales of alcohol for on-premises consumption. They cannot "opt out" by selling food, or whatever. If 51% or above, the business must display a RED 51% sign at each entrance.
There is a blue 51% sign, but it is of no significance to CHL holders
It is illegal for a CHL holder to carry a handgun in a premises that derives 51% or more of its gross receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages. Period. It does not matter whether there is a Red 51% sign, a Blue one, or no sign at all.
Then why does (c) exist in the statute?
Was it invalidated by a Texas Court of Appeals decision?
Hey, don't bring up the blue 51, it will fry a Hoosier's mind. We have enough problems with your red 51s.
What? How does that pass constitutional scrutiny without notice? Is there a Texas case holding this? To me, that's just . . . very different.
Pardon me, but I know Texas is "different" but I see federal constitutional issues with that. I'll look into it and report back!
Paragraph (k) says lack of notice is a defense. What's going on here? Court ruling?
Then why does (c) exist in the statute?
Was it invalidated by a Texas Court of Appeals decision?
I'm just happy there's not more colors than red and blue.Hey, don't bring up the blue 51, it will fry a Hoosier's mind. We have enough problems with your red 51s.
I dunno, why doesn't it? You're the lawyer! Since when does a law have to be constitutional to be passed?What? How does that [no chl carry in 51% zone without a sign] pass constitutional scrutiny without notice? Is there a Texas case holding this? To me, that's just . . . very different.
Texas eagerly awaits your determination! I'll pass it along to the AG and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Seriously, I'd be interested in what you find.)Pardon me, but I know Texas is "different" but I see federal constitutional issues with that. I'll look into it and report back!
Again going from memory, and if you are referring to what I think you are referring to (just got home from work and too lazy to look up):Paragraph (k) says lack of notice is a defense. What's going on here? Court ruling?
Remember the Alamo...
Was the bar 51% marked? Maybe it was just half-assed marked like they do in some places in Texas (and thus could not prohibit carry)? Maybe the bar spent the extra dough for a food and beverage permit which allows bars to opt out of the 51%?
Anywho, without more facts, hard to tell if this alleged good guy was: 1. a good guy (legal carrier), 2. if a good guy, hard to tell if he was committing a crime.
Wait and see.
Ok, in Texas what is the Blue (yah I said it) and Red 51% signs differentiate?
Or are you saying he was allegedly a good guy (whether legal or not) and you are just debating the legality issue?
Blue = No unlicensed possession of weapon (has "NOTICE" printed in blue at top)
Red = No unlicensed or licensed possession of weapon (has red "51%" overprinted on main text)
This.
Just because the media says "bar" does not mean it was a prohibited place to carry (or all of it was prohibited).
Let's see how this shakes out.
Now you've done it.
Meanwhile, in Austin:
in Harris County the DA is apparently not excited to prosecute an individual such as this.
i would beleive that most illegal owners have the gun for one reason and rarely practice as they really cant go to a range. those of us that are cc, shoot all the time! makes sense that we would be more accurate and quicker....right?