Quick CHL question

[Baron Von Crowder]

A new restaurant opened in Keller not too long ago, Mo Fish. I went there the first week they opened. As I went to enter they have a 51% sign bigger than shit right by the front door. They have a very small bar and food is their majority revenue by looking the place. The bar comprisees maybe 15% of the space in the restaurant.
My question is how does an establishment receive a 51% authority? It seems to me that the owner has put the sign there because of his/her personal agenda.

Anyone familiar with this certification chime in?

R

I bet with new places, its a better-safe-than-sorry, or based on the projected number before opening.

The one that has always gotten me is World Of Beer has no signs anywhere, 51%, 30.06, none.

[franks]

A business must show due cause to post a 30.06

good to know, thanks

[GhostTX]

A business must show due cause to post a 30.06

I don't believe so, as it just enforces the trespassing laws. Fortunately, most businesses that are anti-gun are ignorant of the law.

[The King]

Not true. Some of the building are cc friendly in ft worth

What are "some of the buildings"?

My post only concerned federal property, in which concealed carry by citizens is illegal in any Federal building (in Fort Worth or elsewhere).

[GhostTX]

A new restaurant opened in Keller not too long ago, Mo Fish. I went there the first week they opened. As I went to enter they have a 51% sign bigger than shit right by the front door. They have a very small bar and food is their majority revenue by looking the place. The bar comprisees maybe 15% of the space in the restaurant.
My question is how does an establishment receive a 51% authority? It seems to me that the owner has put the sign there because of his/her personal agenda.

Anyone familiar with this certification chime in?

R

TABC controls the 51% sign.

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

Complaint form:

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/enforcement/complain_about_a_location.asp

[franks]

What are "some of the buildings"?

My post only concerned federal property, in which concealed carry by citizens is illegal in any Federal building (in Fort Worth or elsewhere).

I don't know if it was true or not but I think I read an article stating that they were working to make the capital cc legal. Im pretty sure there are some that a texas chl will expedite the search process when entering

[The King]

I don't know if it was true or not but I think I read an article stating that they were working to make the capital cc legal. Im pretty sure there are some that a texas chl will expedite the search process when entering

Concealed carry already is legal in the Texas State Capitol Building, but that has nothing to do with federal property.

[whitetrash]

What are "some of the buildings"?

My post only concerned federal property, in which concealed carry by citizens is illegal in any Federal building (in Fort Worth or elsewhere).

I'm thinking of the city buildings. My mistake

[The King]

I'm thinking of the city buildings. My mistake

I'm glad to see Fort worth and other State entities allow it.

[GhostTX]

I'm thinking of the city buildings. My mistake

Pretty much the only state/city building you can't carry are schools, court houses and jails.

[Chas_svo]

Federal property = no concealed (or open) carry by citizens.

The one that used to get me was hwy 183 south of Lampasas. It had a sign showing you entering the edge of Ft Hood, and therefore Federal property.

Looking now, Ft Hood does not show to go anywhere near 183.

When we were questioning this was way back in 96-98.

Anyone ever had to deal with this?

Sorry for the thread jack.

[The King]

The one that used to get me was hwy 183 south of Lampasas. It had a sign showing you entering the edge of Ft Hood, and therefore Federal property.

Looking now, Ft Hood does not show to go anywhere near 183.

When we were questioning this was way back in 96-98.

Anyone ever had to deal with this?

Sorry for the thread jack.

I've never had to deal with this, but it would seem a similar situation would exist in El Paso with respect to Fort Bliss. I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that public thoroughfares maintained by State or local entities would in and of themselves not be considered federal property.