Restaurant with bar section

[tommyg]

I'm confused I went into a restaurant they have a separate bar section no signs is carry legal

[Tex1961]

You would do well to go to the TABC website and look up the name of the restaurant to see if they are TABC red. Or just ask a manager if they derive 51% or more of their income from the sales of alcohol for on-site consumption. If the bar area was not posted, then it’s most likely just part of the restaurant and they don’t have any issues.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm confused I went into a restaurant they have a separate bar section no signs is carry legal

My understanding... just my opinion, not legal advice...

Is that in a place like Chilis... you can carry at the bar, since the overall business does not exceed 51% alcohol sales... If they did, they would need to post the Red 51% sign.

However... in a place like Bass Hall, where the alcohol concession is managed by a separate vendor, that vendor gets most of their sales from alcohol and the entire location would be off limits (Red 51%), even though Bass Hall gets their revenue from performances, not alcohol.

If the bar at Chillis was a separate license from the restaurant, you would likely be prohibited from carrying at the bar..

[Tex1961]

I'm confused I went into a restaurant they have a separate bar section no signs is carry legal

My understanding... just my opinion, not legal advice...

Is that in a place like Chilis... you can carry at the bar, since the overall business does not exceed 51% alcohol sales... If they did, they would need to post the Red 51% sign.

However... in a place like Bass Hall, where the alcohol concession is managed by a separate vendor, that vendor gets most of their sales from alcohol and the entire location would be off limits (Red 51%), even though Bass Hall gets their revenue from performances, not alcohol.

If the bar at Chillis was a separate license from the restaurant, you would likely be prohibited from carrying at the bar..

I"m going to disagree with you on that one. I can see where one would go that way of thinking, but this is one of those gray areas for sure. Bass Hall is NOT a TABC red location. Now, if you were to walk up to that bar and order a drink then yeah, a case could be made.. But overall, no.. you should not be restricted wholesale throughout the Bass Hall Preemies

[Mike S]

It likely depends on what part of the premises are included in the TABC license.

If you have ever noticed signs at a place that sells alcohol for on-premises consumption to the effect of "No Alcoholic Beverages Beyond This Point", that likely is the demarcation line for the area included in that business' alcohol license.

I'm not a lawyer, nor a TABC license holder, so I'll go back into the shade & drink water until someone comes along that can cite the proper government code ...

[RoyGBiv]

I'm confused I went into a restaurant they have a separate bar section no signs is carry legal

My understanding... just my opinion, not legal advice...

Is that in a place like Chilis... you can carry at the bar, since the overall business does not exceed 51% alcohol sales... If they did, they would need to post the Red 51% sign.

However... in a place like Bass Hall, where the alcohol concession is managed by a separate vendor, that vendor gets most of their sales from alcohol and the entire location would be off limits (Red 51%), even though Bass Hall gets their revenue from performances, not alcohol.

If the bar at Chillis was a separate license from the restaurant, you would likely be prohibited from carrying at the bar..

I"m going to disagree with you on that one. I can see where one would go that way of thinking, but this is one of those gray areas for sure. Bass Hall is NOT a TABC red location. Now, if you were to walk up to that bar and order a drink then yeah, a case could be made.. But overall, no.. you should not be restricted wholesale throughout the Bass Hall Preemies

I agree with you that it SHOULD be this way... But as of my last visit, about 3 years ago, Bass was a 51% location per the alcohol vendor license.

License #: MB492323
AIMS License Type: MB
AIMS License #: 100056590
Trade Name: ARTS AMENITIES INC.
Owner: ARTS AMENITIES INC.
Location Address:
330 E 4TH ST
FORT WORTH , TX 761024010
UNITED STATES
Mailing Address:
330 E 4TH ST
FORT WORTH , TX 761024010
UNITED STATES
County: Tarrant Orig. Issue Date: 5/3/2001
Status: Active Exp. Date: 5/2/2023
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.:
Subordinates: LH
Related To:
Gun Sign: RED

[Tex1961]

I'm confused I went into a restaurant they have a separate bar section no signs is carry legal

My understanding... just my opinion, not legal advice...

Is that in a place like Chilis... you can carry at the bar, since the overall business does not exceed 51% alcohol sales... If they did, they would need to post the Red 51% sign.

However... in a place like Bass Hall, where the alcohol concession is managed by a separate vendor, that vendor gets most of their sales from alcohol and the entire location would be off limits (Red 51%), even though Bass Hall gets their revenue from performances, not alcohol.

If the bar at Chillis was a separate license from the restaurant, you would likely be prohibited from carrying at the bar..

I"m going to disagree with you on that one. I can see where one would go that way of thinking, but this is one of those gray areas for sure. Bass Hall is NOT a TABC red location. Now, if you were to walk up to that bar and order a drink then yeah, a case could be made.. But overall, no.. you should not be restricted wholesale throughout the Bass Hall Preemies

I agree with you that it SHOULD be this way... But as of my last visit, about 3 years ago, Bass was a 51% location per the alcohol vendor license.

License #: MB492323
AIMS License Type: MB
AIMS License #: 100056590
Trade Name: ARTS AMENITIES INC.
Owner: ARTS AMENITIES INC.
Location Address:
330 E 4TH ST
FORT WORTH , TX 761024010
UNITED STATES
Mailing Address:
330 E 4TH ST
FORT WORTH , TX 761024010
UNITED STATES
County: Tarrant Orig. Issue Date: 5/3/2001
Status: Active Exp. Date: 5/2/2023
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.:
Subordinates: LH
Related To:
Gun Sign: RED

Ahh. Shoot. Your right. I was searching for bass hall not arts amenities.

[srothstein]

This has been a problem since the 51% rules was created by the legislature. The problem is that the law only allows one license or permit at any single location at any time. It defines the premises as everything including the parking lot. So if a vendor in a building gets a license or permit, the whole building is covered as the premise. The law does allow the applicant to mark off a portion of a premise to be not covered. So, using a shopping mall as an example, marking off the premise as just the actual single store means that it doesn't make the whole mall off limits. It also has the side effect of allowing multiple licenses in the one building as long a they each mark off a portion that only applies to them and it doesn't overlap. As noted, this explains why you will sometimes see signs saying no alcoholic beverages beyond this point, as that is the edge of the marked off premise.

But, and I have always used a bowling alley as my example, if the contractor does not mark off the portion of the building, then the whole building including the lot is included. I use bowling alleys because the bar would not exist if they did not allow the drinks to be carried to the lanes (well, the alley might not exist long either). We have also seen this with stadiums, theaters, and opera houses where they want to have more than one snack bar selling alcohol.

And to confirm, as of my typing this, Bass Hall has a red sign in the TABC public inquiry system with the contractor name of Arts Amenities, Inc.
EDIT: I see this point was resolved while I was researching and typing this.

[RoyGBiv]

Ahh. Shoot. Your right. I was searching for bass hall not arts amenities.

It's wrong that this is how the law is set up.... Would be nice to get it fixed.

In case you don't already check here: https://texas3006.com/
Bass Hall listing there (requires login, I believe): LINK.

[ScottDLS]

This has been a problem since the 51% rules was created by the legislature. The problem is that the law only allows one license or permit at any single location at any time. It defines the premises as everything including the parking lot. So if a vendor in a building gets a license or permit, the whole building is covered as the premise. The law does allow the applicant to mark off a portion of a premise to be not covered. So, using a shopping mall as an example, marking off the premise as just the actual single store means that it doesn't make the whole mall off limits. It also has the side effect of allowing multiple licenses in the one building as long a they each mark off a portion that only applies to them and it doesn't overlap. As noted, this explains why you will sometimes see signs saying no alcoholic beverages beyond this point, as that is the edge of the marked off premise.

But, and I have always used a bowling alley as my example, if the contractor does not mark off the portion of the building, then the whole building including the lot is included. I use bowling alleys because the bar would not exist if they did not allow the drinks to be carried to the lanes (well, the alley might not exist long either). We have also seen this with stadiums, theaters, and opera houses where they want to have more than one snack bar selling alcohol.

And to confirm, as of my typing this, Bass Hall has a red sign in the TABC public inquiry system with the contractor name of Arts Amenities, Inc.
EDIT: I see this point was resolved while I was researching and typing this.

I don't see how the parking lot gets covered. The penal law that one would supposedly be charged under for carrying in the parking lot is 46.03 and in that section "premises" is clearly defined as

(4) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

I guess the TABC definition would apply for the purposes of licensing, but for the Penal Code, parking lots are specifically excluded.

[Tex1961]

This has been a problem since the 51% rules was created by the legislature. The problem is that the law only allows one license or permit at any single location at any time. It defines the premises as everything including the parking lot. So if a vendor in a building gets a license or permit, the whole building is covered as the premise. The law does allow the applicant to mark off a portion of a premise to be not covered. So, using a shopping mall as an example, marking off the premise as just the actual single store means that it doesn't make the whole mall off limits. It also has the side effect of allowing multiple licenses in the one building as long a they each mark off a portion that only applies to them and it doesn't overlap. As noted, this explains why you will sometimes see signs saying no alcoholic beverages beyond this point, as that is the edge of the marked off premise.

But, and I have always used a bowling alley as my example, if the contractor does not mark off the portion of the building, then the whole building including the lot is included. I use bowling alleys because the bar would not exist if they did not allow the drinks to be carried to the lanes (well, the alley might not exist long either). We have also seen this with stadiums, theaters, and opera houses where they want to have more than one snack bar selling alcohol.

And to confirm, as of my typing this, Bass Hall has a red sign in the TABC public inquiry system with the contractor name of Arts Amenities, Inc.
EDIT: I see this point was resolved while I was researching and typing this.

I don't see how the parking lot gets covered. The penal law that one would supposedly be charged under for carrying in the parking lot is 46.03 and in that section "premises" is clearly defined as

(4) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

I guess the TABC definition would apply for the purposes of licensing, but for the Penal Code, parking lots are specifically excluded.

Nope. TABC has a different definition Od a premis.

Sec. 11.49. PREMISES DEFINED; DESIGNATION OF LICENSED PREMISES. (a) In this code, "premises" means the grounds and all buildings, vehicles, and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds, including any adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under the control of the same person.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... /AL.11.htm

[srothstein]

This has been a problem since the 51% rules was created by the legislature. The problem is that the law only allows one license or permit at any single location at any time. It defines the premises as everything including the parking lot. So if a vendor in a building gets a license or permit, the whole building is covered as the premise. The law does allow the applicant to mark off a portion of a premise to be not covered. So, using a shopping mall as an example, marking off the premise as just the actual single store means that it doesn't make the whole mall off limits. It also has the side effect of allowing multiple licenses in the one building as long a they each mark off a portion that only applies to them and it doesn't overlap. As noted, this explains why you will sometimes see signs saying no alcoholic beverages beyond this point, as that is the edge of the marked off premise.

But, and I have always used a bowling alley as my example, if the contractor does not mark off the portion of the building, then the whole building including the lot is included. I use bowling alleys because the bar would not exist if they did not allow the drinks to be carried to the lanes (well, the alley might not exist long either). We have also seen this with stadiums, theaters, and opera houses where they want to have more than one snack bar selling alcohol.

And to confirm, as of my typing this, Bass Hall has a red sign in the TABC public inquiry system with the contractor name of Arts Amenities, Inc.
EDIT: I see this point was resolved while I was researching and typing this.

I don't see how the parking lot gets covered. The penal law that one would supposedly be charged under for carrying in the parking lot is 46.03 and in that section "premises" is clearly defined as

(4) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

I guess the TABC definition would apply for the purposes of licensing, but for the Penal Code, parking lots are specifically excluded.

I agree with you on what the law says. My understanding of cases where there is a conflict between sections of code is that the newer law takes precedence. That would be the definition in 46.03, especially since it applies to that specific charge. But I point it out more so that you can be more aware of it, because I do not trust DAs and judges to uphold he law as they should, especially in places like Austin and Houston. While it should never happen to anyone, at least in those cases you should win the appeal if it does happen.

[Tex1961]

This has been a problem since the 51% rules was created by the legislature. The problem is that the law only allows one license or permit at any single location at any time. It defines the premises as everything including the parking lot. So if a vendor in a building gets a license or permit, the whole building is covered as the premise. The law does allow the applicant to mark off a portion of a premise to be not covered. So, using a shopping mall as an example, marking off the premise as just the actual single store means that it doesn't make the whole mall off limits. It also has the side effect of allowing multiple licenses in the one building as long a they each mark off a portion that only applies to them and it doesn't overlap. As noted, this explains why you will sometimes see signs saying no alcoholic beverages beyond this point, as that is the edge of the marked off premise.

But, and I have always used a bowling alley as my example, if the contractor does not mark off the portion of the building, then the whole building including the lot is included. I use bowling alleys because the bar would not exist if they did not allow the drinks to be carried to the lanes (well, the alley might not exist long either). We have also seen this with stadiums, theaters, and opera houses where they want to have more than one snack bar selling alcohol.

And to confirm, as of my typing this, Bass Hall has a red sign in the TABC public inquiry system with the contractor name of Arts Amenities, Inc.
EDIT: I see this point was resolved while I was researching and typing this.

I don't see how the parking lot gets covered. The penal law that one would supposedly be charged under for carrying in the parking lot is 46.03 and in that section "premises" is clearly defined as

(4) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

I guess the TABC definition would apply for the purposes of licensing, but for the Penal Code, parking lots are specifically excluded.

I agree with you on what the law says. My understanding of cases where there is a conflict between sections of code is that the newer law takes precedence. That would be the definition in 46.03, especially since it applies to that specific charge. But I point it out more so that you can be more aware of it, because I do not trust DAs and judges to uphold he law as they should, especially in places like Austin and Houston. While it should never happen to anyone, at least in those cases you should win the appeal if it does happen.

The phrase I use most often in class is “The law is clear as mud”