Fighting a 51% sign at Midland County Horseshoe Arena

[45nut]

Midland County's horseshoe arena is a county owned multi use facility that host gun shows, concerts, rodeo's, and ect. When they first opened it it was posted with a 30.06 sign. When the 30.06 sign came down they posted it wit a 51% sign. I do not think there is no way that they get 51% of there revenue from alcohol sales. Yesterday I called the local TBAC field office and spoke with a field agent. He recommended that I call the Texas Comptroller's office to find out if they are a 51% facility. I called the Comptroller's Odessa office and they did some initial number crunching, and called me back and told me she was forwarding the case to the TBAC for investigation.
I don't know what will come from this but hopefully the TBAC will make Midland County follow the law.

Here is a photo for the wall of shame from a government agency not following the law.

[karl]

So if this establishment is found to be improperly posting that sign, are you still bound by that law on their property?

[45nut]

I don't know the answer to that. I think as long as it's posted you can not carry. Hopefully the TBAC will remove the sign

[ScottDLS]

So if this establishment is found to be improperly posting that sign, are you still bound by that law on their property?

No. Because the prohibition on carrying is based on whether they actually make 51% of their sales from alcohol (for on premises consumption), not whether they post a sign or not.

[austin-tatious]

So if this establishment is found to be improperly posting that sign, are you still bound by that law on their property?

No. Because the prohibition on carrying is based on whether they actually make 51% of their sales from alcohol (for on premises consumption), not whether they post a sign or not.

Since Sept 1, they have to post a sign. No sign = defense to prosecution (HB 2664). See the thread http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=27085.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Thats like the Jared's (The Rim) here in San Antonio. Now we all know that Jared's is a jewelry store with NO alcohol. Yet they posted their business 51%. Not legal. However, they are also posted 30.06.

All that tells me is that they do not want my money and I do not want to give it to them!

[ScottDLS]

So if this establishment is found to be improperly posting that sign, are you still bound by that law on their property?

No. Because the prohibition on carrying is based on whether they actually make 51% of their sales from alcohol (for on premises consumption), not whether they post a sign or not.

Since Sept 1, they have to post a sign. No sign = defense to prosecution (HB 2664). See the thread http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=27085.

I was debating whether to bring that up, however the OP question was

So if this establishment is found to be improperly posting that sign, are you still bound by that law on their property?

The answer is NO because the prohibition on carry is based on the alcohol sales percentage, not the sign.

Whether you have a defense to prosecution for carrying in a 51% location without a sign (you do) is a different issue.

[austin-tatious]

No. Because the prohibition on carrying is based on whether they actually make 51% of their sales from alcohol (for on premises consumption), not whether they post a sign or not.

Since Sept 1, they have to post a sign. No sign = defense to prosecution (HB 2664). See the thread http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=27085.

I was debating whether to bring that up, however the OP question was

So if this establishment is found to be improperly posting that sign, are you still bound by that law on their property?

The answer is NO because the prohibition on carry is based on the alcohol sales percentage, not the sign.

Whether you have a defense to prosecution for carrying in a 51% location without a sign (you do) is a different issue.

Thanks for your reply. I see the difference you are talking about. But if there is a sign, I don't plan on ignoring it until and unless I have absolute proof the establishment is not really 51%. OR if it is absurd (like the Jared's posting ).

[srothstein]

So if this establishment is found to be improperly posting that sign, are you still bound by that law on their property?

No. Because the prohibition on carrying is based on whether they actually make 51% of their sales from alcohol (for on premises consumption), not whether they post a sign or not.

Just one very minor, but important technical correction. The prohibition is not based on the actual sales, but on what TABC determines the percentage to be. If TABC determined that Jared's (to pick one ridiculous example) received more than 51% of their gross income from alcohol for on premises consumption, the ban would be in effect even if Jared's sold one glass of wine per year.

The application for a license or renewal asks what percentage will be alcohol sales, what percentage will be food sales, and what percentage will be from everything else. These numbers are then crunched to make the determination. If alcohol is greater than the other two combined, they are 51%. This is the real determining factor on the prohibition.

And based on this, I do not understand why the TABC agent referred you to the Comptroller's office. It is their job to make the determination. And it is TABC's job to investigate the applications to make sure the answers given are honest. He could have quickly looked in the computer system to find out what the current determination was and told you this.

There are a few obvious problems with this system. The first is that the application does not ask if the alcohol sales will be from on-premise or off-premise. There are a few licenses that allow both and they should be separated for an honest decision on the law.

The second possible problem is the inability of TABC to truly verify the application numbers. It is very hard to do the type of audit that would reveal how much money came from each area. It would be a full audit of all income for the business. TABC does not have the resources to do this type of audit very often, and the public relations problems inherent in doing this would make it problematical anyway.

The third possible problem, and maybe more applicable to this scenario, is the question of multiple businesses at one location. If there is a contract vendor selling the alcohol (probable) instead of the county itself, they may actually be a 51% vendor. This would be especially true if the vendor for alcohol was different than the vendor for food. And if the vendor, so people can take beer around the fairgrounds as an event goes on (or drink in the stands), lists the whole premise for the license, then the whole premise is suddenly a 51% premise. We have discussed this before in relation to ice skating rinks and bowling alleys. This could be the same scenario.

So, the advice I gave before is still critical. To find out if the sign is valid, look at the license for the "SIGN=RED" line. You can also ask the local district office to look up that information for you. If the license says this, then you are prohibited from carry there.

EDIT: A quick note also to let you all know, if interested, that I am no longer employed by TABC. I recently resigned my position and am currently looking for work. I will still use my knowledge and expertise to post when I can, but I can no longer be said to be your local TABC expert.

[lrb111]

I've thought about the Horseshoe arena often. There are many activities and venues presented there where there are no alcohol sales at all. If it is truly a 51% location, they need to explain how we can attend gunshows there. With many dealers concealing their own loaded weapons, with some sort of permission...
and If it is truly a 51% location, why do gunshows have to post 30.06 since all entrances are already posted 51%?
If the 51% applied the sheriff's deputy that normally assists with zip tying weapons at the door of the gunshows, should be making arrests instead.

[lrb111]

A quick note also to let you all know, if interested, that I am no longer employed by TABC. I recently resigned my position and am currently looking for work. I will still use my knowledge and expertise to post when I can, but I can no longer be said to be your local TABC expert.

Always a valued asset round these parts. All the best in your new venture.