German Festival in Tomball Red 51% sign?

[texanron]

After church today the family and I hit up the German Festival in downtown Tomball. As we approached the barricades that block motorized vehicles from entering the vendor areas I noticed a RED 51% sign attached to one of the barricades. I thought it was strange and had to be incorrectly posted. My reasoning behind that decision was that it wasn't an establishment It was a public street festival. They did have a few beer vendors in addition to the other typical food and collectible street vendors, Thoughts?

[tbrown]

Do they have a TABC license to sell alcohol? If so, it's possible it's a 51% license.
I can't find a german festival in tomball on http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[srothstein]

The problem with many of the festivals is that they only get a temporary permit, so it is not in the database. You cannot rely on the database for special events like that.

A second problem is that many of the temporary permits are given to the beer vendor and not the festival organizer. The beer vendor is going to make more than 51% from beer sales, so he qualifies for a red sign. And, since he has the only permit for the premises, the permit covers the whole festival and makes the whole festival 51%.

This is the same problem that occurs in some bowling alleys and similar places when there is a contractor operating the alcohol sales and it makes the whole alley 51%.

[MasterOfNone]

The problem with many of the festivals is that they only get a temporary permit, so it is not in the database. You cannot rely on the database for special events like that.

A second problem is that many of the temporary permits are given to the beer vendor and not the festival organizer. The beer vendor is going to make more than 51% from beer sales, so he qualifies for a red sign. And, since he has the only permit for the premises, the permit covers the whole festival and makes the whole festival 51%.

This is the same problem that occurs in some bowling alleys and similar places when there is a contractor operating the alcohol sales and it makes the whole alley 51%.

Since 46.035(b)(1) indicates that the prohibition applies to the "premises of a business that has a permit," wouldn't it only apply to a building, having no bearing on the streets? And only a building under the vendor's control?

[The Annoyed Man]

Saw this for the first time this year at Grapefest in Grapevine.

[rp_photo]

I guess one must say "Nein! nein! nein!" as far as this event.

[srothstein]

The problem with many of the festivals is that they only get a temporary permit, so it is not in the database. You cannot rely on the database for special events like that.

A second problem is that many of the temporary permits are given to the beer vendor and not the festival organizer. The beer vendor is going to make more than 51% from beer sales, so he qualifies for a red sign. And, since he has the only permit for the premises, the permit covers the whole festival and makes the whole festival 51%.

This is the same problem that occurs in some bowling alleys and similar places when there is a contractor operating the alcohol sales and it makes the whole alley 51%.

Since 46.035(b)(1) indicates that the prohibition applies to the "premises of a business that has a permit," wouldn't it only apply to a building, having no bearing on the streets? And only a building under the vendor's control?

This is a very gray area of the law. Until there is case law, there will always be a question of whether the term premises applies based on the Penal Code definition or the Alcoholic Beverage Code definition. The existing case law uses the ABC definition of premises, but it predates the CHL law completely. Under teh ABC, premises includes anything on the license, including the parking lot.

I think the Penal Code definition would apply, but I can see good argument for the ABC code. And street festivals where there is no fixed building confuse the issue even more. I will take the more conservative view, but will not argue with someone who thinks the Penal Code definition will apply and carries there.

[apostate]

This is a very gray area of the law. Until there is case law, there will always be a question of whether the term premises applies based on the Penal Code definition or the Alcoholic Beverage Code definition. The existing case law uses the ABC definition of premises, but it predates the CHL law completely. Under teh ABC, premises includes anything on the license, including the parking lot.

That may be true for the purposes of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, such as licensing and penalties for license violations. However, is it an offense in the Alcoholic Beverage Code to possess a handgun on the premises, or does that infringement exist solely in the Penal Code? In the latter case, 46.035(f)(3) seems quite clear.

Searching the ABC for "handgun" I find only 11.04 relating to required signs and 61.71, which penalizes the retailer and not the customer.

[JP171]

I have been told by one festival coordinator (not the festival your asking about) that the whole festival isn't 51% and the posting is incorrect. As I understand the festival isn't permitted for the beer/wine sales but the individual vendors and most of them probably have shops or bars right next to where they are selling same as the festival isn't permitted for food sales the vendors are. The Dickens festival that was on galveston island last weekend was not posted with either the 51% or the 30:06 signage. As they did post an improper sign I would just take my money elsewhere. If you really want to know call the local TABC office and ask.

SR, never heard that because an independant operator rented a space inside a bowling alley the whole facility was off limits, as a matter of fact I was told by the houston enforcement office that that was not possible.

[PUCKER]

Saw this for the first time this year at Grapefest in Grapevine.

I believe I saw a 30.06 sign there too...don't really know how it would be enforceable as the festival is on city streets and parking lots?

[bayouhazard]

Saw this for the first time this year at Grapefest in Grapevine.

I believe I saw a 30.06 sign there too...don't really know how it would be enforceable as the festival is on city streets and parking lots?

Same way they and their ilk illegally intimidate voters.

[PUCKER]

Saw this for the first time this year at Grapefest in Grapevine.

I believe I saw a 30.06 sign there too...don't really know how it would be enforceable as the festival is on city streets and parking lots?

Same way they and their ilk illegally intimidate voters.

Had not heard of any incidents of this type in Grapevine, I confess to being ignorant of what you type...please inform, thank you.

[srothstein]

This is a very gray area of the law. Until there is case law, there will always be a question of whether the term premises applies based on the Penal Code definition or the Alcoholic Beverage Code definition. The existing case law uses the ABC definition of premises, but it predates the CHL law completely. Under teh ABC, premises includes anything on the license, including the parking lot.

That may be true for the purposes of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, such as licensing and penalties for license violations. However, is it an offense in the Alcoholic Beverage Code to possess a handgun on the premises, or does that infringement exist solely in the Penal Code? In the latter case, 46.035(f)(3) seems quite clear.

Searching the ABC for "handgun" I find only 11.04 relating to required signs and 61.71, which penalizes the retailer and not the customer.

I agree with your logic, but the case law I was referring to comes from the old Penal Code cases of whether or not the premise in 46.02 was licensed for the felony upgrade. It has been decided under that law that the ABC definition was controlling.

And I know that this predates the CHL and the new definition of premises in 46.035, but I also know that courts can be very reluctant to change their logic sometimes. A street festival with no buildings would be the worst test case to come up to ask this question as it has no premises under 46.l035.

[srothstein]

SR, never heard that because an independant operator rented a space inside a bowling alley the whole facility was off limits, as a matter of fact I was told by the houston enforcement office that that was not possible.

Interestingly enough, the other thread on the Verizon theater is a perfect example, and it is in Houston. The license is red and is in the name of the catering company. It covers the whole premise so that the people can take drinks to their seats. either the whole premise is off limits or the people break the law when they take the drink to their seats.

[JP171]

SR, never heard that because an independant operator rented a space inside a bowling alley the whole facility was off limits, as a matter of fact I was told by the houston enforcement office that that was not possible.

Interestingly enough, the other thread on the Verizon theater is a perfect example, and it is in Houston. The license is red and is in the name of the catering company. It covers the whole premise so that the people can take drinks to their seats. either the whole premise is off limits or the people break the law when they take the drink to their seats.

ok, then tell me how the TRF isn't off limits, they have several vendors that are 51% and you can carry your beer and other drinks around, but CHL isn't off limits? not trying to argue, just understand the logic your applying.