Single customer wins shootout with FOUR armed robbers in Texas bar.

[indiucky]

Remember the Alamo...

 

[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%?

...

This is a tangent, but since you brought it up and it deals with a felony, with all due respect some... clarification... is needed.

- It is illegal to carry firearms where alcohol is sold, unless you have a Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Doesn't matter if it is alcohol that is consumed or packaged.
- A business that sells alcohol for on-premises consumption must have a license to do so. (Different license to sell package/to-go alcohol).
- If the business has a license to sell for on-premises, 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). That sign must meet certain requirements e.g. have certain text in English and Spanish prohibiting CHL carry and have a solid red 51 in characters at least 5 inches high.
- 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.
- Where it used to get really squirrelly was in determining where exactly that 51% "premises" applies. When a business applies for a license, they tell the TABC where the "premises" is going to be (I think they provide a diagram). If they have separate bar, as many hotels do, then the license may apply only to that barroom, and thus the rest of the hotel is legal for carry. But some smaller business may just designate the whole building in their application, and therefore the whole place is off limits for licensed carry. It used to be even worse in that the law did not specify the sign had to be at entrances, just displayed for the public, which in practice meant it was often behind the bar taped to the mirror or some such, and you would not see it until you were already in "illegal" territory. The law was changed to require the signs at each entrance, but that does not provide an exception to a CHL holder who enters. At best, a defense.

- Happily, nearly all the places that I frequent that sell alcohol for on-premises consumption are under the 51% mark. Your basic restaurant that also sells alcoholic drinks falls into this category. E.g. Chilis, Applebees, etc. Actual bars, regardless of whether they sell food, are verboten if they make most of their gross from drinks.

The whole law needs to be dumped, but there are other things in line ahead of that. There may be a push this legislature to make it legal to CHL carry everywhere an LEO can carry, but not sure of that yet. Let us hope.

Sounds like that guy who plugged the robbers did a good deed, but sometimes good deeds get punished. Not surprised that he decided it was safer to be elsewhere after the smoke cleared.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

Then why does (c) exist in the statute?

Was it invalidated by a Texas Court of Appeals decision?

There is a blue 51% sign, but it is of no significance to CHL holders

Hey, don't bring up the blue 51, it will fry a Hoosier's mind. We have enough problems with your red 51s.

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.

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?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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?

You mean Texas constitution or US? I think this law is in force in a number of states.

 

[Drail]

If this was the usual outcome for a bunch of punks looking for fast cash you have to wonder if maybe most of them would just go get a real job and being a criminal would be the worst job available. I mean, most of them aren't real bright but still...........

 

[Alamo]

Then why does (c) exist in the statute?

Was it invalidated by a Texas Court of Appeals decision?

[STRIKE]I will have to look. Dunno off top of head. But as far as I have been able to determine, if you make more from your booze than your food, you're a 51% premises. [/STRIKE]
Ok, I went and looked. Embarrassingly, I can't find the right section for the (c) I think you are referring to, but in any case it appears that regardless of the type of license one has (and there a bunch of different types), if it permits on-premises consumption, then the TABC will make a 51% determination and tell you whether you must post a red (no CHL carry) or blue sign. Acoholic Beverage Code, Chapter 104, Sec. 104.06. MONITORING OF GROSS RECEIPTS.

Hey, don't bring up the blue 51, it will fry a Hoosier's mind. We have enough problems with your red 51s.

I'm just happy there's not more colors than red and blue.

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.

I dunno, why doesn't it? You're the lawyer! Since when does a law have to be constitutional to be passed?

More to the point I guess, not every law that binds has a sign attached to it? In this case, the statute about no CHL in bars is in the ...uh... [STRIKE]Weapons [/STRIKE]Penal Code, chapter on Weapons, IIRC, and the bit about posting Red and {the color that shall not be mentioned in indiana} is in the [STRIKE]TABC[/STRIKE] Government code (but determination of 51% is in the TABC code). Different laws I guess. Also, I suppose we get some heads up on it in the initial CHL class. For renewal I just had to sign (well, click) a statement that I knew what the CHL laws are. Ignorance of the law is only an excuse for those who are most cogniscent of the law, like cops, prosecutors, judges --I guess it is related to that whole immunity thing... You can go on line and see the TABC's database for licenses, [STRIKE]but it is sometimes tricky to decipher because of the food issue.[/STRIKE] and hey! They've made it much easier to read! Sign = Blue or Sign = Red.

Just to make it more fun, you can put up the Red 51% sign even if it is not required and that is not illegal (for a non-alcohol license holder). A CHL holder who realizes that the place is not really a 51% premises can legally walk right by it.

Pardon me, but I know Texas is "different" but I see federal constitutional issues with that. I'll look into it and report back!

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.)

Paragraph (k) says lack of notice is a defense. What's going on here? Court ruling?

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):

Like I said, the sign posting requirement used to be a lot more vague -- it basically said in public view or something like that. So people would tape one sign up behind the bar, then start putting up all the other legal notices required, BBQ advertisements, the latest drink specials, and all that, the sign would fade, and you could not see it until "legally" too late. So the Legislature changed the law to require it be posted by each entrance; if it is missing, you can use that as a defense. But not an exception.


As a practical matter, most 51% locations LOOK like 51% locations, and apparently Red and {that color} are not a problem for Texans with CHLs, because in 2012 (latest data) there were only 22 convictions of CHL holders for Unlawful Carry, and this covers other things besides bars (e.g. schools, posted hospitals, probably OC advocates).

 

[Alamo]

Remember the Alamo...

Thanks! It's nice to be remembered!

Oh, wait...

 

[dusty88]

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.

I'm not clear on your #2. Are you saying that if he was somehow legal he was a good guy, but if he was NOT legal then he was not a "good guy" ?

Or are you saying he was allegedly a good guy (whether legal or not) and you are just debating the legality issue?

 

[critter592]

Ok, in Texas what is the Blue (yah I said it) and Red 51% signs differentiate?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Why does Texas suck so hard?

 

[Alamo]

Ok, in Texas what is the Blue (yah I said it) and Red 51% signs differentiate?

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)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Or are you saying he was allegedly a good guy (whether legal or not) and you are just debating the legality issue?

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.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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)

Now you've done it.

Meanwhile, in Austin:

 

[dusty88]

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.

Okay.. I'm with you on that

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Called Texas (Houston) this afternoon.

Apparently the Tejas po-po still cannot find this guy even though he was a regular at the bar and as a Volunteer Sheepdog would walk waitresses and back boys to cars after closing. I'll bet they are looking real hard too.

Slow boat to China maybe?

The place is a bar and SHOULD be red 51 marked. Defense here is necessity, but there has to be a prosecution first and even in Harris County the DA is apparently not excited to prosecute an individual such as this.

Oh, btw, either ALL of the place is marked or none of it is. So like Bennigan's with a bar would not have a separate 51 for the bar as the 51 is determined by the address, not the area of the establishment.

 

[Alamo]

I looked up the bar in the original article, then hit the TABC's website, which it turns out is a lot more usable than it used to be. EJ's Place is indeed supposed to have the 51% sign, and the license database report notes "Gun Sign Red." I am assuming they have the sign correctly posted, as they have only two administrative violations listed, one for an outdoor advertising violation and one for "Possession Of AB Unfit For Consumption" but both of those are 15 years old or more.

The current DA in Harris County is a great improvement over his anti-armed-citizen predecessor. The state legislature had to re-write the Motorist Protection Act because he basically ignored the law. The MPA allows anyone who was otherwise legal to have a gun to keep a loaded handgun in his vehicle as long as it is out of sight. No CHL needed. The former DA (Rosenthal) directed the police to arrest anyone who had a gun in their car regardless of the law. The legislature reworked the law to thwart this, the former DA self-destructed over some emails, and Harris County elected a much more armed-citizen-friendly DA. So, yeah, chasing down the volunteer sheepdog probably doesn't have the priority it would have a few years ago.


I hope the effort to expand CHL carry to basically everywhere gets up some steam in the legislature and we can dump the 51% nonsense, along with a lot of other nonsense. I fear the militant open carry advocates have sabotaged making significant progress on any gun law, however.

 

[Alamo]

Now you've done it.

Meanwhile, in Austin:

Oops. Altho, depending on where that hole is centered, this could be an improvement. Austin is where we try to keep the blue (there's that color again) leaning folk confined, altho they tend to infest big city governments all around the state. Quite a nuisance.

 

[hd96heritage]

in Harris County the DA is apparently not excited to prosecute an individual such as this.

Good news. We need more sheepdog support from LEO and court rooms across the country.

 

[harrna02]

Single customer wins shootout with four armed robbers in Texas bar « Hot Air

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?

 

[ModernGunner]

Good for the customer and other patrons, good for the bar owner and employees. Not so good for the attempted robbers.

Unfortunately for them, the robbers chose... poorly.