Shooting incidents in the news.

[RoyGBiv]

Is a gun in a bar not allowed or is drinking with a gun in a bar not allowed? Nevada's pretty lax, .10 BAC, and we don't have any issues with it that I'm aware of. This incident happened in 2008 and I'm pretty sure he and the rest of the patrons were happy he was carrying his heater at the time.

I suppose I could look up the license... Reading the article, and judging by the name "EJ's Place" and references to "bar", I assumed it was a place that has a primary business of serving alcohol. In TX it works like this.... If the "bar" derives more than 50% of it's business from alcohol sales, CC is not allowed. Less than 50% (think Chili's), CC is ok. In addition, CC while "intoxicated" is never ok. So far, TX PC defines "intoxicated" CC the same way as for driving.

Looking at the TABC license database for this place shows them to be off-limits for CC.
"Gun Sign = Red" is >50% revenue from alcohol sales. "Gun Sign = Blue" is OK for CC.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx

License #: MB255969
Trade Name: EJ'S PLACE
Owner: SCHU'S INC.
Location Address: 16460 KUYKENDAHL SUITE 130 HOUSTON , TX 77068
Mailing Address: 16460 KUYKENDAHL STE 130 HOUSTON , TX 77068
County: Harris Orig. Issue Date: 6/30/1995
Status: Current Exp. Date: 6/29/2015
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.: 2813978535
Subordinates: LB
Related To: Gun Sign: RED

https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp

Here are the two signs side by side. You should never see this on a licensed location. They must post the proper sign, one or the other. And if they post the wrong sign (like if Chilis posted the red sign "just because they felt like it", one call or email to TABC usually gets the problem fixed quickly.

"Unlicensed Possession" = Licensed is ok

[MDS]

Bar patron (big CHL no-no) kills two of four armed robbers, then flees

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texa...ob-5800877.php

Wow, of the four unrelated shootings in Houston this week, as mentioned in this article, three seem like righteous defensive shoots and only one was due to an altercation at a trailer park. Obviously that's just a superficial impression based on a news article, but still, good ratio!

[Shellback]

Depends on the state. North Carolina, for example, in the past didn't allow carry in an establishment that served alcohol "by the drink" regardless of whether the person carrying consumed alcohol. Now you can carry in a bar, but you may not consume alcohol.

It's a felony in Texas to carry in a bar that gets 51% or more of its revenue from alcohol sales, regardless if you are drinking. Up to a 10 year prison term.

This can be a problem because it isn't always immediately apparent if a pub type restaurant sells 51% or more booze. They're required to post a sign, but it's sometimes pretty well hidden.

In TX it works like this.... If the "bar" derives more than 50% of it's business from alcohol sales, CC is not allowed. Less than 50% (think Chili's), CC is ok. In addition, CC while "intoxicated" is never ok. So far, TX PC defines "intoxicated" CC the same way as for driving.

Thanks for the info guys. Somebody must have to much time on their hands to come up with the 51% law.

[JV_]

Thanks for the info guys. Somebody must have to much time on their hands to come up with the 51% law.

From what I've seen from lawmakers, the 51% isn't a calculated figure/thought when making the law. They just say things like "majority" and then someone tries to further define "majority" by saying greater than half.

[Drang]

Depends on the state. North Carolina, for example, in the past didn't allow carry in an establishment that served alcohol "by the drink" regardless of whether the person carrying consumed alcohol. Now you can carry in a bar, but you may not consume alcohol.

It's an interesting example of "Federalism as PoliSci lab".
In Oregon you can carry in a bar.
in Washington you can carry in a restaurant, even if it serves booze by the drink, but NOT in a bar. If the restaurant has a bar, you can carry in the one part, but not the other; they're supposed to post a "no weapons allowed" sign, but often make do with the "No minors allowed:, which has the same legal force.
The crime rates in Portland and Vancouver are not significantly impacted by the discrepancy.

One thing I've noticed is that, as violent crime rates decline, the more likely you are to hear about them.
"Four shootings in our little slice of suburbia in the last 6 months!" Went to a Townhall Meeting, at which the Chief of Police briefed us on the one drug sale gone bad, two gang related, and one domestic violence shootings. He stopped just short of saying "Don't do stupid things with stupid people, at stupid places and times, and you'll be all right", but he did point out that they all involve what he called "marginal populations."

[Sensei]

From what I've seen from lawmakers, the 51% isn't a calculated figure/thought when making the law. They just say things like "majority" and then someone tries to further define "majority" by saying greater than half.

I've always found this law curious because some establishments may be above or below this threshold depending on the month. Then, there is the issue of the State having to prove this after having made the arrest. As a NC resident, I'm very glad that we simplified this aspect of concealed carry.

[TR675]

Businesses here are incentivized to stay on one side of the line or another by TABC rules and local ordinances.

I can't recall if the presence or absence of the sign itself makes any difference. Will check and update.

Re: the federalism/experimentation comment: you'd think that the complete lack of problems other states have had might impact our legislature and get them to loosen up some of the sillier restrictions in this state. Maybe they have more important things to do. Or maybe that's just how government (doesn't) work.

[RoyGBiv]

I can't recall if the presence or absence of the sign itself makes any difference. Will check and update.

GC 411.204 requires notice (the big ugly signs above) to be posted. HOWEVER..... PC 46.035 (b)(1) defines an offense for CC in places with a >51% designation and PC 46.035 (i) does not allow the absence of proper signage as a defense to prosecution. So..... It's my understanding (opinion!) that if a place is designated by TABC as >51% but fails to post a sign, CC-ing is still not allowed (felony, 3rd degree per 46.035(g) )

Re: the federalism/experimentation comment: you'd think that the complete lack of problems other states have had might impact our legislature and get them to loosen up some of the sillier restrictions in this state. Maybe they have more important things to do. Or maybe that's just how government (doesn't) work.

The realities of TX politics are way OT here but here's a quick summary as I understand it...
Many of the better gun bills never make it out of committee because House speaker Joe Straus (a Republican who caucuses with Democrats to keep his Speaker seat) appoints Democrats to Chair several key committees through which gun bills must pass. Getting a new Speaker next year is a very high priority for gun legislation. With a 95/55 (63%) majority in the house, pro-gun bills will pass if they make it out of committee. For example, HB3218(2013) would have allowed TX-CHL holders to carry almost everywhere a LEO can carry (including 51% establishments as long as not intoxicated). The bill was assigned to the Homeland Security Committee, Chaired by Joe Pickett, an El Paso Democrat. The committee never put it on the calendar for a vote. There's just no reason for a Democrat to be Chair of this committee, except as payola for keeping Straus in the Speakers seat.

Even with Greg Abbott looking likely to win the Governors mansion next month, and with Abbott publicly promising open carry (jump to 1:18 if you're busy) for Texas, reality is that Abbott will have only limited ability to force gun bills out of committee.

[Shellback]

A homeowner in the Houston area of Texas faced a terrifying situation when three armed men burst into his home in broad daylight late last week.

“I looked up once 15 minutes into it and the guy said if you look up again we’ll kill you,” the victim said.
“I had the gun and pointed it at the door and the door opened. I unloaded on them,” he said.

An unidentified good Samaritan in Cleveland, Ohio is in critical condition after being shot in the chest during an armed robbery attempt.

The victim, who police say was assisting two females change a tire, was shot in the upper body, after suspects drove up in another vehicle, asking the trio asking [sic] for directions.
Officers state that as the victim provided directions, one of the suspects pulled out a handgun and began to rob the victim and the two women.
At some point during the robbery the victim drew his own weapon and he and the suspect exchanged gunfire striking each other.

[TR675]

GC 411.204 requires notice (the big ugly signs above) to be posted. HOWEVER..... PC 46.035 (b)(1) defines an offense for CC in places with a >51% designation and PC 46.035 (i) does not allow the absence of proper signage as a defense to prosecution. So..... It's my understanding (opinion!) that if a place is designated by TABC as >51% but fails to post a sign, CC-ing is still not allowed (felony, 3rd degree per 46.035(g) )

I believe you are correct. Only question I've got is the mens rea requirement of the law and how that would be construed - which I'm reasonably sure without looking up would be that intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carrying the weapon is the proper mens rea, not intentionally, etc. carrying the weapon on the 51% premises...if that makes sense. So you could commit a third degree felony without knowing the premises was a 51% establishment...which happens all the time...do your due diligence before walking into a gastropub, is the lesson here.

The realities of TX politics are way OT here but here's a quick summary as I understand it...
Many of the better gun bills never make it out of committee because House speaker Joe Straus (a Republican who caucuses with Democrats to keep his Speaker seat) appoints Democrats to Chair several key committees through which gun bills must pass. Getting a new Speaker next year is a very high priority for gun legislation. With a 95/55 (63%) majority in the house, pro-gun bills will pass if they make it out of committee. For example, HB3218(2013) would have allowed TX-CHL holders to carry almost everywhere a LEO can carry (including 51% establishments as long as not intoxicated). The bill was assigned to the Homeland Security Committee, Chaired by Joe Pickett, an El Paso Democrat. The committee never put it on the calendar for a vote. There's just no reason for a Democrat to be Chair of this committee, except as payola for keeping Straus in the Speakers seat.

Even with Greg Abbott looking likely to win the Governors mansion next month, and with Abbott publicly promising open carry (jump to 1:18 if you're busy) for Texas, reality is that Abbott will have only limited ability to force gun bills out of committee.

Very interesting, thanks.