unlicensed carry where alcohol is served

[tommyg]

I'm still seeing signs unlicensed carry is a felony. I'm confused since unlicensed carry is now legal

Is it legal to carry in a restaurant that is under 51 percent without a license

I have a valid license

[Tex1961]

Your probably referring to the TABC Blue signs. HB 1927 did away with those signs. So No, it’s no longer illegal to carry into a location that is under 51%. I would say that 90% of the locations that have those signs are unaware they are no longer valid.

[howdy]

For the sake of a discussion (I do not know if I support this). Pretty much any gun buster sign IS binding for non-licensed carry. Could someone argue that the Blue Sign would be considered a warning to non-licensed carriers to not carry there. I agree that the signs are relics that should be removed but some businesses might leave them up to exclude non-licensed carry. I live in Harris County with all liberal judges and DA. I can see them going after some "bad gun person".

[RoyGBiv]

Your probably referring to the TABC Blue signs. HB 1927 did away with those signs. So No, it’s no longer illegal to carry into a location that is under 51%. I would say that 90% of the locations that have those signs are unaware they are no longer valid.

I believe Tex is correct..... My opinion only. IANAL.
I don't think I've seen any locations selling alcohol, from liquor stores to Kroger (wine and beer) that have removed those signs.

The only mentions of alcohol legislation in 1927 are as follows...

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... 01927E.htm

SECTION 23. Section 46.03, Penal Code, is amended by
amending Subsections (a), (c), (e-1), (e-2), and (g) and adding
Subsections (a-2), (a-3), (a-4), and (g-2) to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm,
location-restricted knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in
Section 46.05(a):

<snip>

(7) 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;

<snip>

SECTION 26. The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Section 11.041, Alcoholic Beverage Code; (repeals unlicensed possession signs)
(2) Section 11.61(e), Alcoholic Beverage Code; (repeals penalty on licensed business for allowing unlicensed carry)
(3) Section 61.11, Alcoholic Beverage Code; (repeals unlicensed possession signs... again)
(4) Section 61.71(f), Alcoholic Beverage Code; (repeals penalty on licensed business for allowing unlicensed carry... again)

[Tex1961]

For the sake of a discussion (I do not know if I support this). Pretty much any gun buster sign IS binding for non-licensed carry. Could someone argue that the Blue Sign would be considered a warning to non-licensed carriers to not carry there. I agree that the signs are relics that should be removed but some businesses might leave them up to exclude non-licensed carry. I live in Harris County with all liberal judges and DA. I can see them going after some "bad gun person".

I think your comparing apples to oranges here... TABC Blue and Red (51%) are in a completely different category (TABC banned locations) than a regular 30.05/06/07 which are more for private business (Yes, some are for restricted locations as well but not for alcohol). Also they do not constitute what is considered legal warning, IE, one inch letters, specific wording, etc.... As far as gun buster signs, those are a whole other discussion... The language of HB 1927 isn't very clear on that subject... There are a few post here that have hotly debated that very subject with both sides of the argument posting different parts of the bill to prove the point.. My understanding from other instructors who had to go to the DPS academy this year for recertification were not able to get a direct answer to that question. In short it's one of those that will take a test case to go to trial and be decided on by a judge and hopefully the Texas legislators will clarify at some point in the future.

[K.Mooneyham]

For the sake of a discussion (I do not know if I support this). Pretty much any gun buster sign IS binding for non-licensed carry. Could someone argue that the Blue Sign would be considered a warning to non-licensed carriers to not carry there. I agree that the signs are relics that should be removed but some businesses might leave them up to exclude non-licensed carry. I live in Harris County with all liberal judges and DA. I can see them going after some "bad gun person".

(In reference ONLY to the statement highlighted in red.) Can someone point out where in the law that statement has been made? And before anyone wants to throw the "beat the rap but not the ride" thing out, I have my LTC. I just want to know how that statement is accurate. I know what the law says, and unfortunately they put the words "substantially similar" in there. However, have we seen anyone ARRESTED ("the ride"), subsequently charged with a violation of PC 30.05 for walking past a "gunbuster" sign, and then CONVICTED ("the rap") for walking past that sign? Have there been any cases where someone has been ARRESTED for walking past, but then not charged? If there is even ONE case where either of these has happened, I would love to read about it. The infamous leftwing activist Saul Alinsky alluded to making a thing scarier than the thing itself. So, what I am pointing out is that unless that has happened, arrest and/or conviction, then it is just OPINION about those gunbuster signs, even though it may be a well-intentioned opinion. And obviously I'm not going to be the "test case" because, again, I have my LTC. I just don't want to give things away to the antis that shouldn't be given away.

EDITED TO ADD THE TEXT OF THE RELEVANT SECTION OF PC 30.05:

c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:

(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";

(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;

(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

[howdy]

Again, I did my post to get discussion going. What I am reading is that we just don't really know what the actual law is and how it will be interpreted. I went to the second or third day of the requals and there were many questions that the instructors could not answer. LTC holders, as a group are very law abiding so there is very little case law to back up what we believe or don't believe. I get asked by friends who want to do un-licensed carry what the law is and I can only say that I am not sure, and saying "do you want to be the test case" is not very comforting. I tell them to get their LTC and not worry about it.

[RoyGBiv]

Again, I did my post to get discussion going. What I am reading is that we just don't really know what the actual law is and how it will be interpreted.

K. Mooneyham posted the text of 30.05 above and it's fairly explicit.
Seems to me that a TABC Blue sign is far from meeting 30.05 notification requirements. A gunbuster sign is similarly inadequate.
Just my OPINION. IANAL.

[Tex1961]

Again, I did my post to get discussion going. What I am reading is that we just don't really know what the actual law is and how it will be interpreted.

K. Mooneyham posted the text of 30.05 above and it's fairly explicit.
Seems to me that a TABC Blue sign is far from meeting 30.05 notification requirements. A gunbuster sign is similarly inadequate.
Just my OPINION. IANAL.

TABC BLUE IS NO LONGER A VALID SIGN.... Under HB 1927 it was removed, so it now has zero bearing on anything... To repeat what I said earlier TABC Blue was only for unlicensed carry in a place that sold or served alcohol under 51%.... Whereas 30.05 is a more general sign for no unlicensed carry period.

Also to repeat myself, there are a few other threads here that go pretty deep into gun buster signs... For me there are 2 thoughts on this. First from reading the requirements of 30.05 a gun buster does not meet the legal requirements... so basically invalid.... However... Since unlicensed carry does not fall under LTC, oral or written notice is a valid argument for we don't want you to carry in our establishment....

Here is what I tell my students when doing a Constitutional Carry Class on this.. I do explain what all of the signs mean and what the legal requirements are.. I also explain that HB 1927 was poorly written and not flushed out yet... I give them both sides of the argument that there needs to be a 30.05 and the other side that says oral or written notice is also effective.... I simply. tell them that it's their decision weather or not to carry past a gun buster sign. And if they do I recommend they stay concealed just to stave off any possible situation....

Because we simply don't know what the actual law is due to it being so poorly written, it's almost a waste of time arguing about it... I've seen both sides say that they have spoken to a lawyer and they both still have conflicting answers... So until either a judge makes a ruling or the Texas legislator fixes it, it's kind of a mute point... And even then, there's really no penalty if you are asked to leave and you comply....

[C-dub]

Related, but somewhat as an aside, just who is/was the felony for violating the unlicensed carrying past one of those "old" TABC signs directed at anyway? In past discussions I thought it was intended toward the business. Originally, I thought it was directed at the person carrying in a business, but now, even though it seems a moot point, still don't know.

[oljames3]

We do not know what any law means until there is an appellate court ruling concerning said law. The black letter law may seem clear, but the appellate court could disagree. Laws are written for lawyers and contain legal terms of art that may not have the plain English meaning. Of course, sometimes the legislature just passes bad law.

The best discussion of the Firearm Carry Act of 2021 that I have seen is the brochure at this link, written my Texas lawyers.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GHrea- ... oUqzfi6H_E

Two of the authors, lawyers Emily Taylor and Richard D. Hayes, II, have a YouTube channel on which they discuss Texas gun and self-defense law.
https://www.youtube.com/c/ArmedAttorneys/videos

[srothstein]

Can someone point out where in the law that statement has been made? And before anyone wants to throw the "beat the rap but not the ride" thing out, I have my LTC. I just want to know how that statement is accurate. I know what the law says, and unfortunately they put the words "substantially similar" in there. However, have we seen anyone ARRESTED ("the ride"), subsequently charged with a violation of PC 30.05 for walking past a "gunbuster" sign, and then CONVICTED ("the rap") for walking past that sign? Have there been any cases where someone has been ARRESTED for walking past, but then not charged? If there is even ONE case where either of these has happened, I would love to read about it. The infamous leftwing activist Saul Alinsky alluded to making a thing scarier than the thing itself. So, what I am pointing out is that unless that has happened, arrest and/or conviction, then it is just OPINION about those gunbuster signs, even though it may be a well-intentioned opinion. And obviously I'm not going to be the "test case" because, again, I have my LTC. I just don't want to give things away to the antis that shouldn't be given away.

EDITED TO ADD THE TEXT OF THE RELEVANT SECTION OF PC 30.05:

c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:

(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";

(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;

(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

The problem stems from the way the code is written when combined with the Code Construction Act (Government Code chapter 311). This law tells you how to read any terms in any Texas law. Section 311.016(1) says that may is discretionary or grants permission or a power. It does not make something required. So, one interpretation of Penal Code section 30.05 is that if they post a sign that uses the language specified you are legally notified that your entry while carrying a firearm (without a license) is without the effective consent of the owner. That makes you guilty of criminal trespass. But by not using the word SHALL in the law, this does not make it mandatory as the only way to notify a person that their entry is not allowed. There is the clearly and obviously legal way of telling them orally. But, there is also nothing saying other signs would not also provide legal notice. So, then you end up with the legal question "is a gunbuster sign (circle with a gun with a slash through it) enough notice to tell the mythical average, reasonable man that he cannot enter with a gun? Considering other trespass notices that are specifically allowed in Texas (like a fence designed to keep people out or animals in, or a purple painted mark on a fence or tree), I think it might be reasonable to conclude that the legislature would normally allow something as simple as a gunbuster sign.

The opposite interpretation is also very reasonable. By putting in the specific wording to use in 30.05, plus doing the same in 30.06 and 30.07, it is possible a court would decide that the law should be taken as the specified sign is the only way to notify a person in writing. This happens to be the opinion I thin is correct, but I cannot tell anyone to go by that thought. I have to let them know how the law could be taken by prosecutor and a court and let them make their own decision on the risk. Unfortunately, as with so many disagreements in modern life, this has come down to being something someone states their belief in and no one takes the time to explain how it is just an opinion and could be taken otherwise by a court.

[srothstein]

Related, but somewhat as an aside, just who is/was the felony for violating the unlicensed carrying past one of those "old" TABC signs directed at anyway? In past discussions I thought it was intended toward the business. Originally, I thought it was directed at the person carrying in a business, but now, even though it seems a moot point, still don't know.

That warning was directed at the person carrying the firearm. Carrying without a license was unlawfully carrying. While unlawfully carrying was almost always a misdemeanor, doing so in a premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages was upgraded to a felony.

[chasfm11]

TABC BLUE IS NO LONGER A VALID SIGN.... Under HB 1927 it was removed, so it now has zero bearing on anything... To repeat what I said earlier TABC Blue was only for unlicensed carry in a place that sold or served alcohol under 51%.... Whereas 30.05 is a more general sign for no unlicensed carry period.

Logic would tell me that you are correct. But I have several nagging questions about it.

1. The sign is almost universally not removed. Almost every store, including Wal-Mart, that had it up before Constitutional Carry passed still has it up. I know that most businesses are not anxious to have their store fronts posted with useless signs so my simple question is: why is it still up? There has been more than ample time to remove them
2. There are the "usual suspects" in the anti-gun crowd like Sprouts Farmers Market that have not posted 30:05 signs. These businesses had 30:07 and added 30:06 in place before that Open Carry bill went into effect. If they are still that militant about rejecting citizen carry, why aren't they taking action against a potentially larger group of people who might carry without a license? I have seen other places like Whole Foods extend their "word salad" signs which merge 30.06 and 30.07 sign language into a paragraph now include 30.05 so there is at least some recognition in the market place that such language is necessary.

I saw one other post in this thread that said that nothing is settled until there is a trial and appeal. Even that does not appear to be valid any longer. We have too many DA offices where the power to administer the law is no longer the driving factor. They pick and choose what they want to pursue whether there is valid statute or not. As evidence, i would offer the Rittenhouse matter. I have little hope that if I got into a gun related situation, not even a use of my gun, that it would be handled according to the law and not according the the possible political advantage of the moment. I'm appalled that the Texas Legislature left this matter this unclear but I guess, given the environment that I described, it really doesn't matter. I was cynical before and I'm doubly so now.

[RoyGBiv]

2. There are the "usual suspects" in the anti-gun crowd like Sprouts Farmers Market that have not posted 30:05 signs. These businesses had 30:07 and added 30:06 in place before that Open Carry bill went into effect. If they are still that militant about rejecting citizen carry, why aren't they taking action against a potentially larger group of people who might carry without a license? I have seen other places like Whole Foods extend their "word salad" signs which merge 30.06 and 30.07 sign language into a paragraph now include 30.05 so there is at least some recognition in the market place that such language is necessary.

FWIW, my local Sprouts has a compliant 30.05 sign, in addition to compliant .06 and .07 signs.

I've asked at a local liquor store where I know the owner is ok with carry.... She said that she has not received any direct instruction from TABC to take down the unlicensed possession sign, so, she leaves it up. Better to have a meaningless sign posted than to remove it and risk trouble.

Not everyone keeps on top of the changing gun laws like we do here (except maybe the folks that run Sprouts ). I don't think it's any more complicated than that.