51% and the TABC

[bdee]

Can't a business simply put up a 30.06 sign if they don't want guns on the premises, why go to the trouble to get a liquor license if that is the goal?

 

[Mreed911]

Can't a business simply put up a 30.06 sign if they don't want guns on the premises, why go to the trouble to get a liquor license if that is the goal?

Not if they're government-owned.

Note: often times, the posts before yours will give more background to the thread than just the title, and can be valuable in terms of figuring out what to type in the Reply box if you're so inclined.

 

[stdreb27]

Can't a business simply put up a 30.06 sign if they don't want guns on the premises, why go to the trouble to get a liquor license if that is the goal?

For the record I'm not saying a particular company did this for the sole reason of banning guns. There are a quite a few reasons for legally separating your liquor license from the rest of your business streams.

What I AM saying is places that are clearly NOT a bar have 51% liquor licenses associated with their address hence guns are banned because of the way their businesses are structured.

But you have a flawed premise... You're assigning rationality to anti-gunners.

 

[bdee]

Sorry I am new from Georgia, and this is new for me. They do have fights over places like the airport in non-secure zones. But in places like bars, pubs, taverns, etc., it is up to the owner to decide whether they want guns on the premises, not some government agency. But even with that, Georgia does have laws against getting drunk and shooting people.

But I was warned before I got here to respect the 51% and 30.06 signs as it was more than just a trespassing offense for taking your gun in there anyway.

 

[Mreed911]

Sorry I am new from Georgia, and this is new for me. They do have fights over places like the airport in non-secure zones. But in places like bars, pubs, taverns, etc., it is up to the owner to decide whether they want guns on the premises, not some government agency. But even with that, Georgia does have laws against getting drunk and shooting people.

But I was warned before I got here to respect the 51% and 30.06 signs as it was more than just a trespassing offense for taking your gun in there anyway.

Yep. The difference is outside of specific allowances, government property can't be legally 30.06 posted. 51% has no exceptions, period.

 

[bdee]

We had a situation where Georgia passed a law stating you could carry concealed in the non-secure parts of the airport. Atlanta's transit system passed right through the airport. Hartsfield-Jackson basically said %$@#%^$ you, we'll arrest anyone with a gun in the airport period. Georgia passed a second law making it even more explicit. Georgia Carry had to finally sue the airport to get them to comply. I have a feeling this is one of those things where a civil rights group is going to have to sue the aquarium or the TABC to get relief.

 

[Mreed911]

We had a situation where Georgia passed a law stating you could carry concealed in the non-secure parts of the airport. Atlanta's transit system passed right through the airport. Hartsfield-Jackson basically said %$@#%^$ you, we'll arrest anyone with a gun in the airport period. Georgia passed a second law making it even more explicit. Georgia Carry had to finally sue the airport to get them to comply. I have a feeling this is one of those things where a civil rights group is going to have to sue the aquarium or the TABC to get relief.

There is no relief. It's illegal.

As the thread describes it will take a law change. Next chance is 2017.

 

[stdreb27]

We had a situation where Georgia passed a law stating you could carry concealed in the non-secure parts of the airport. Atlanta's transit system passed right through the airport. Hartsfield-Jackson basically said %$@#%^$ you, we'll arrest anyone with a gun in the airport period. Georgia passed a second law making it even more explicit. Georgia Carry had to finally sue the airport to get them to comply. I have a feeling this is one of those things where a civil rights group is going to have to sue the aquarium or the TABC to get relief.

Oh other point of clarity.

The aquarium is a private facility.

 

[Mreed911]

Oh other point of clarity.

The aquarium is a private facility.

It is?

Edit: It is. From their web site:

The Texas State Aquarium is a private, not-for-profit organization that receives no city, state or federal funding for its operations. The Aquarium relies on general admissions, memberships, retail sales, event rentals and the generous support from donors to maintain its operations.

My guess would be that the profit margins from alcohol sales will help them.

If you want to FIGHT this, though, a publicity campaign about "would you bring elementary school students to a bar for a field trip?" would probably be pretty effective and hit them where it hurts.

"Getting drunk with the fishes!" "Drinking with the sharks!" "Getting sloppy with the seals!"

Not something schools would take lightly.

 

[bdee]

Oh other point of clarity.

The aquarium is a private facility.

So, if that is the case, again I ask, if the real goal is to keep guns out of the facility, why not just post a 30.06 sign?

 

[karlac]

So, if that is the case, again I ask, if the real goal is to keep guns out of the facility, why not just post a 30.06 sign?

I would think the question is who actually owns the land?

IOW, is it owned by the city, and leased to the non-profit entity?

 

[Mreed911]

I would think the question is who actually owns the land?

IOW, is it owned by the city, and leased to the non-profit entity?

In fact, it is (so back to "can't post 30.06 anyway, 51% gets around the prohibition"):

[h=4]Location[/h]
Address:	2710 SHORELINE BLVD (TX STATE AQUARIUM),, TX 78401	Mapsco:
Neighborhood:	TEXAS STATE AQUARIUM S/D	Map ID:	U-5
Neighborhood CD:	S8740
[h=4]Owner[/h]
Name:	CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI	Owner ID:	202704
Mailing Address:	P O BOX 9277 CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78469-9277	% Ownership:	100.0000000000%

 

[karlac]

So, if that is the case, again I ask, if the real goal is to keep guns out of the facility, why not just post a 30.06 sign?

In fact, it is (so back to "can't post 30.06 anyway, 51% gets around the prohibition"):

Thank you!
As I indicated, your answer to the ownership question definitively answers bdee's question.

 

[bdee]

So if the land is owned by the city, but managed, and operated by a private non-profit, does it qualify as a government building?

 

[bdee]

It all seems a bit silly from my chair, what is the point of a 51% law anyway? Doesn't Texas have a law against getting drunk and shooting people already?

 

[karlac]

So if the land is owned by the city, but managed, and operated by a private non-profit, does it qualify as a government building?

While there are some exceptions, as a general rule it is indeed owned by a municipality and therefore subject to the appropriate CHL statutes.

I notice that our city is scrambling to get rid of some of their "unlawful" 30.06 signage due to the recent change.

Tickled to see it ... one of those commonsense laws you would not expect to see passed, no matter it took at least twice for it to do so.

 

[karlac]

It all seems a bit silly from my chair, what is the point of a 51% law anyway? Doesn't Texas have a law against getting drunk and shooting people already?

Liberal bullshit to make as many conditions to concealed carry as possible.
And, lawyers, practicing their business model of gaming the judicial system ...

 

[busykngt]

So if the land is owned by the city, but managed, and operated by a private non-profit, does it qualify as a government building?

Time to bring in the lawyers.

It all seems a bit silly from my chair, what is the point of a 51% law anyway? Doesn't Texas have a law against getting drunk and shooting people already?

Which part: the getting drunk part OR the shooting people part? :>)

 

[Mreed911]

It all seems a bit silly from my chair, what is the point of a 51% law anyway? Doesn't Texas have a law against getting drunk and shooting people already?

When the original CHL law passed, it was already a felony to unlawfully carry a weapon on any premises with an alcoholic beverage permit. The CHL bill included language to ALLOW carry in premises selling for off-site consumption and those serving alcohol but not as a primary means of revenue (e.g. restaurants or large event spaces that happened to serve alcohol, but not bars), but kept those places that made the majority of their money from alcohol sales off limits. Language was also added that made carry WHILE intoxicated an offense, too (since before, you couldn't carry, so UCW always applied, sober or not).

There are no specific laws about getting drunk and shooting people as a single act, but both are already illegal separately, yes, with different punishment ranges.

It's silly, of course, but on its face, reasonable in terms of the rationality of carrying in a bar.

What's happening here, though, is the limits of that law being pushed - e.g. a private vendor whose revenues are 100% from alcohol sales in a public space obtains a liquor license for the entire premises and therefore posts 51% signs making any carry illegal, even if you're only coming to look at the fish and not drink. It's also not the facility, now, that's prohibiting it, it's the private vendor INSIDE the facility using its entire premises to allow the serving/consumption of alcohol.

Cities now prohibited from posting 30.06 signs (and 30.07 signs in January) have found a new way to keep citizens from exercising their right to carry using a new application of an existing liquor law.

As I've said before, it's a great reason to send to school boards and city councils about why they should avoid the Texas State Aquarium - it's a bar, now, not an educational facility.

 

[bdee]

Liberal bullshit to make as many conditions to concealed carry as possible.
And, lawyers, practicing their business model of gaming the judicial system ...

Doesn't the GOP control nearly 2/3 of both houses and the governor's office?

Well I've lived in several states, and been involved in expanding gun rights in each of them. I can tell you there is one key to expanding rights. That key is to get a law passed that says that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that any law affecting that right needs to pass strict scrutiny. Where does constitutional carry stand at this point?