TexasCHLforum.com

Just because there is alcohol being served in the meeting room that is being sold by an external source (the 51% flagged bar) does not make anything illegal or inappropriate in my opinion. If CHL'ers go into the bar which is properly posted, then that is illegal. If CHL'ers are drinking in the meeting room while carrying that is also illegal. The meeting room may not realize any income whatsoever from the bar and may not need to be covered by the bar's 51% sign unless you must enter the meeting room via the bar. Interesting situation.

Well, I must say, it was a strange set-up. I parked in the back parking lot. If you entered from the back (which was really the front), there was a 51% sign on the door (which I checked for when I left for the evening). However, members were entering from the northside of the building (the other side adjacent to the front parking lot). There was no 51% sign leading into the entrance of the meeting room. The first time I saw the 51% sign inside the building was at the back of the meeting room on the doors leading to the next room, presumably where alcoholic beverages were served. This got me thinking that only the areas between the entrance (on the south end of the building) and the 51% signs on the doors leading to the lounge were covered. Even to someone familiar with 51% signs and what they mean, it was a screwey set-up.That does beg the question as to WHY NO 51% sign was put at an entrance which is a major entrance; one which members of that club would routinely enter. At the very least, it would set up a defense, mind you not one I would want to invoke. I suppose, as the [pre-paid legal] lawyer suggested, that once one saw the sign at the back of the room at the entrance to the bar, then they would have an obligation to leave the building and secure their weapon in their vehicle. Had there been a 51% sign on the door leading into the meeting room (where everyone entered), I can guarantee you there would have been different behavior exhibited by those who were carrying that evening or at the very least, well-grounded trepidation.

MarshalMatt wrote:I suppose, as the [pre-paid legal] lawyer suggested, that once one saw the sign at the back of the room at the entrance to the bar, then they would have an obligation to leave the building and secure their weapon in their vehicle..

I suspect I'd have been more inclined to leave the building, get in my vehicle, and go somewhere I and my gun are welcome. And ask [pre-paid legal] for a refund.

misterlarry wrote:Just because there is alcohol being served in the meeting room that is being sold by an external source (the 51% flagged bar) does not make anything illegal or inappropriate in my opinion. If CHL'ers go into the bar which is properly posted, then that is illegal. If CHL'ers are drinking in the meeting room while carrying that is also illegal. The meeting room may not realize any income whatsoever from the bar and may not need to be covered by the bar's 51% sign unless you must enter the meeting room via the bar. Interesting situation.

This is not actually correct. The 51% area is defined when the business obtains the liquor license. It may just be the bar area, or it can be the whole facility. If patrons are are allowed to take drinks from the location where they dispense the alcohol into the other area (meeting room, etc) then you can bet that area is defined as part of the license and is off limits to carry (drinking or not) if the license is 51%.

As for drinking and carrying, just the act of consuming alcohol while carrying is not illegal. Where it becomes illegal is if you become intoxicated while carrying.

Jason K wrote: This.....my confidence in them is a bit shaken by this....

Respectfully:
Your prior confidence was based on what? Their excellent record of protecting their clients? The metrics around how many cases they've successfully defended? Public feedback from members who have used their services and are 100% satisfied?

Or do you mean your confidence based on what their non-lawyer commissioned sales staff told you?

Again, no personal attack intended... They pitched me too, but cited "privacy" when I asked about the public cases they've defended, etc...

MarshalMatt wrote:Well, I must say, it was a strange set-up. I parked in the back parking lot. If you entered from the back (which was really the front), there was a 51% sign on the door (which I checked for when I left for the evening). However, members were entering from the northside of the building (the other side adjacent to the front parking lot). There was no 51% sign leading into the entrance of the meeting room. The first time I saw the 51% sign inside the building was at the back of the meeting room on the doors leading to the next room, presumably where alcoholic beverages were served. This got me thinking that only the areas between the entrance (on the south end of the building) and the 51% signs on the doors leading to the lounge were covered. Even to someone familiar with 51% signs and what they mean, it was a screwey set-up.That does beg the question as to WHY NO 51% sign was put at an entrance which is a major entrance; one which members of that club would routinely enter. At the very least, it would set up a defense, mind you not one I would want to invoke. I suppose, as the [pre-paid legal] lawyer suggested, that once one saw the sign at the back of the room at the entrance to the bar, then they would have an obligation to leave the building and secure their weapon in their vehicle. Had there been a 51% sign on the door leading into the meeting room (where everyone entered), I can guarantee you there would have been different behavior exhibited by those who were carrying that evening or at the very least, well-grounded trepidation.

I entered at the front door (North side) where you had to sign in. I was looking for a sign but did not see one. IF they had the 51% sign posted at the front door, I would have gone back to my car and gone home.

I once emailed them with some pertinent questions regarding coverage that would have covered this kind of situation and never received an answer. This company inserted themselves into many CHL classes by offering a cut of the take until the DPS expressed stern disapproval in instructor classes. I have to wonder if they did or did not know it was a 51% location. Was there a $ incentive to use it anyway and just keep it quiet so people would still come? What about the owner of the location, whom I would think would have brought it up upon serving alcohol. Ultimately, the first time anyone saw alcohol was available, they should have checked to confirm the site was not 51%. The takeaway is [pre-paid legal] is sloppy at best which is not what you want when your freedom is on the line, and anytime alcohol is available, check directly for yourself sign or no sign.

TexasGal wrote:I once emailed them with some pertinent questions regarding coverage that would have covered this kind of situation and never received an answer.

The same for me. Not a good sign IMO.

TexasGal wrote:I once emailed them with some pertinent questions regarding coverage that would have covered this kind of situation and never received an answer. This company inserted themselves into many CHL classes by offering a cut of the take until the DPS expressed stern disapproval in instructor classes. I have to wonder if they did or did not know it was a 51% location. Was there a $ incentive to use it anyway and just keep it quiet so people would still come? What about the owner of the location, whom I would think would have brought it up upon serving alcohol. Ultimately, the first time anyone saw alcohol was available, they should have checked to confirm the site was not 51%. The takeaway is [pre-paid legal] is sloppy at best which is not what you want when your freedom is on the line, and anytime alcohol is available, check directly for yourself sign or no sign.

I would imagine this was a large venue with a small rental charge. That was a very big factor in using this place.

howdy wrote:

TexasGal wrote:I once emailed them with some pertinent questions regarding coverage that would have covered this kind of situation and never received an answer. This company inserted themselves into many CHL classes by offering a cut of the take until the DPS expressed stern disapproval in instructor classes. I have to wonder if they did or did not know it was a 51% location. Was there a $ incentive to use it anyway and just keep it quiet so people would still come? What about the owner of the location, whom I would think would have brought it up upon serving alcohol. Ultimately, the first time anyone saw alcohol was available, they should have checked to confirm the site was not 51%. The takeaway is [pre-paid legal] is sloppy at best which is not what you want when your freedom is on the line, and anytime alcohol is available, check directly for yourself sign or no sign.

I would imagine this was a large venue with a small rental charge. That was a very big factor in using this place.

I imagine the American Legion post is a cheap venue compared to most.

[quote="WildBill"I imagine the American Legion post is a cheap venue compared to most. [/quote]

Is the American Legion an non-profit entity? If so, I seem to remember that there are some TABC rules that give a non-profit a bit more latitude.

NavyVet1959 wrote:

WildBill wrote:I imagine the American Legion post is a cheap venue compared to most.

Is the American Legion an non-profit entity? If so, I seem to remember that there are some TABC rules that give a non-profit a bit more latitude.

Not when it comes to allowing concealed carry if they are a 51% location by the license.

cb1000rider wrote:
Respectfully:
Your prior confidence was based on what?

More like going from "benefit of the doubt" to "less than zero".