Majestic Theater San Antonio--Posted?

[alphonso]

Anybody know if the Majestic Theater in San Antonio is posted?

It's not shown on 30.06.com. There are some threads here about it, but none too recent.

Thanks in advance...

[artx]

It wasn't when I went last year. Even if it was, I believe the city of SA owns it http://www.majesticempire.com/aboutACE.php and thus a posting is not enforceable. Note that although there is a lease to another entity, the city maintains ownership. Neat venue, I wouldn't want to be downtown unarmed.....

[WildBill]

I read in one thread from April, that it wasn't posted. I don't know why it would have changed, but YMMV.

[alphonso]

OP here.

There is nothing on the Majestic website about guns. I called a manager and he said "no guns" and that they had signs at the door and that the whole place was 51% (which simply can't be true). I asked him if he was posted 30.06. He didn't know what that was. He promised to take a look at his no gun signs and call me back. So far, no call back.

When I explained to him that he wasn't allowed to post a city-owned building he said he'd never heard of such a thing. Also that the management company that runs the theater made the rules.

I cannot find the Majestic listed on the TABC site.

Just a guess, the TABC has the Majestic listed under the name of the management and is allowing a city-owned building to be posted in violation of the law.

Do we have a lawyer(s) here who want to look into the situation? I'll help...

[SATX-Scrub]

OP here.

There is nothing on the Majestic website about guns. I called a manager and he said "no guns" and that they had signs at the door and that the whole place was 51% (which simply can't be true). I asked him if he was posted 30.06. He didn't know what that was. He promised to take a look at his no gun signs and call me back. So far, no call back.

When I explained to him that he wasn't allowed to post a city-owned building he said he'd never heard of such a thing. Also that the management company that runs the theater made the rules.

I cannot find the Majestic listed on the TABC site.

Just a guess, the TABC has the Majestic listed under the name of the management and is allowing a city-owned building to be posted in violation of the law.

Do we have a lawyer(s) here who want to look into the situation? I'll help...

The Mgmt company is called ACE Theatrical Group, and every patron in that place would have to spend about $75 for booze every time they went for it to be legitimately 51%. The city owns the property, so that should be enough said right there. I'm pretty sure their main source of revenue is the parking garage, anyway!

[srothstein]

I called a manager and he said "no guns" and that they had signs at the door and that the whole place was 51% (which simply can't be true).

I cannot find the Majestic listed on the TABC site.

Just a guess, the TABC has the Majestic listed under the name of the management and is allowing a city-owned building to be posted in violation of the law.

No need for a lawyer. This is a legal situation and we have discussed it before. The license is in the TABC site under the name of Facility Concession Services, Inc. It lists it as a red sign license, which is within the law.

Here is how this happens. TABC makes the decision based on what is reported to them on the application. The application asks for the breakdown of food, alcohol, and other sales from the licensee. This is the key point, it is the licensee information. In this case, the concessionaire makes more than 50 of his sales from alcohol since no one really goes to that theater to eat. They make nothing from the gate, so the admission price is not counted in the calculation.

The license applies to the whole premise unless part is lined off on the application. In a case like this, they want the people to be able to take their drinks to their seats, so nothing in the theater gets lined off. So, the whole theater is 51% and properly posted by the law.

We have seen this and discussed it before in respect to bowling alleys, ice skating rinks, and similar locations where the building owner is not operating the bar. I think we might have even discussed this very theater once also. There is no way to write the license based on the income of all of the businesses in the building while still allowing the patrons to take their drinks around the building. After all, if you owned the theater, would you tell the bar contractor how much money you were making? It might affect the contract price, which is not generally considered a good thing.

[TxSheepdog]

So the building is not posted 30.06, but it is still illegal to carry under the 51% sign?

[reverendxlt]

sounds that way...

[alphonso]

Sroth,

Thanks for the informative answer. I think you have it right.

I spoke to the "manager" of the theater and he hardly knew a thing about the law, the theater's policies, or the signs that were/were not posted. When pressed, he finally told me that no guns were allowed to respect the wishes of the artists.

Sounds to me like putting the 51% on the whole place, which is as you know, owned by the city is just a slippery trick to abridge my 2nd amendment rights and cause me to walk around downtown unarmed.

The bowling alley analogy is helpful to understand the situation, but unless the bowling alley is city or state owned, not completely relevant.

[Keith B]

Sroth,

Thanks for the informative answer. I think you have it right.

I spoke to the "manager" of the theater and he hardly knew a thing about the law, the theater's policies, or the signs that were/were not posted. When pressed, he finally told me that no guns were allowed to respect the wishes of the artists.

Sounds to me like putting the 51% on the whole place, which is as you know, owned by the city is just a slippery trick to abridge my 2nd amendment rights and cause me to walk around downtown unarmed.

The bowling alley analogy is helpful to understand the situation, but unless the bowling alley is city or state owned, not completely relevant.

City Owned buildings are NOT exempt from being off-limits with a 51% sign, just 30.06. TABC requires 51% sign if the premise is licensed as 51%, so that is one way a government building CAN be restricted and off-limits to a CHL.

[alphonso]

Keith,

Right you are. My objection is that the revenue for the whole building is not used to calculate the 51% status of the whole building.

The fact that they want people to be able to take drinks to their seats doesn't seem relevant to me. When I am at a non 51% restaurant, there are drinks all around me and often even at my table. As long as none of them are mine, there is no issue.

It seems to me that the city and the theater managers found a somewhat slimy way to keep guns out simply because they wanted them out.

[Keith B]

Keith,

Right you are. My objection is that the revenue for the whole building is not used to calculate the 51% status of the whole building.

The fact that they want people to be able to take drinks to their seats doesn't seem relevant to me. When I am at a non 51% restaurant, there are drinks all around me and often even at my table. As long as none of them are mine, there is no issue.

It seems to me that the city and the theater managers found a somewhat slimy way to keep guns out simply because they wanted them out.

I don't think this is done to purposely keep out guns (aka I don't think they are that smart.) It is strictly a loophole that just happens to catch us CHL'ers. A good example is the Kimble Art Museum in Fort Worth. It is a 51% location. The reason being, the business who provides the food service for the museum is contracted. They DO make over 51% of their income from alcohol. They hold the liquor license, so when the TABC looks at the revenues, it is based on the owner of the liquor license. As srothstein says, the license goes with the whole building (unless they specifically limit where the alcohol can be taken when they apply for the license), so the whole building becomes a 51% location by default.

[alphonso]

Keith,

We probably will never know, and probably will never agree.

The mere presence of alcohol does not prohibit CHL. I suspect that they intentionally classify the entire building via TABC through the vendor who is 51% specifically to keep legal guns out of the whole establishment. If they wanted I'm sure the TABC could classify the building to its actual owner, and just acknowledge that there is a 51% business that operates on part of the building.

Again, I can CHL in a non 51% restaurant with alcohol all around me.

In other words, I think "they" are that smart. Wrong headed, but smart nonetheless.

This will be my last trip to the Majestic--tickets are too expensive anyway...

[3dfxMM]

The restaurant and the theater are not the same case at all. In the case of the restaurant, the alcohol business and the non-alcohol business are the same business owned by the same entity. In the case of the theater you have two businesses owned by two separate entities. They just happen to be sharing the same space.

[Jaguar]

A good example is the Kimble Art Museum in Fort Worth. It is a 51% location.

Wow, I would have never imagined that. I've been there once, nice experiance, but before I got my CHL so I didn't notice a 51% sign. I guess you never know where a sign may pop up.