Unlicensed possession restrictions

[GKC]

I live in Texas, and I frequently see businesses with a sign saying (paraphrased) "The unlicensed possession of a firearm on these premises..." and it goes on to describe the penalties.

My question is, by using the term unlicensed, does that mean that you can legally carry into the premise if you have a CCW permit? That would make you licensed to carry.

Thanks.

[TNFrank]

Sounds like it to me. They only want folks with CCW's packin' in their place.

[cass]

For TEXAS, that's exactly what it means.

[sophie]

Pretty self explanatory when you think about it.

James

[Retired LTC, USAR]

To some, it could mean that their firearm must be licensed (registered). Depends on where you live is how you interpet the statement.

[GKC]

Originally Posted by sophie

Pretty self explanatory when you think about it.

James

Well, I thought so too...it would seem like that if a business didn't want you to carry a firearm in or on their premise, they would have a sign saying "No firearms." The sign saying "No unlicensed firearms" seems strange to me...since if you carry without a license or CCW permit, it is a violation of the law anyway.

[russp1]

I've aways thought those signs were both strange and useless. Strange because if you're allowing me to carry since I have a license, why post it and useless because if I'm illegally carrying without a license, I doubt I'll pay any attention to your sign.

[Texas Star]

I think the Texas liquor control board requires the signs in businesses that sell or serve alcohol.

[russp1]

Originally Posted by Texas Star

I think the Texas liquor control board requires the signs in businesses that sell or serve alcohol.

A very good possibility now that I think about it; it's usually restaurants that I see these at.

[CelticSire]

Do the signs say unlawful or unlicensed? Big difference as there are restrictions concerning the unlawful possession of a firearm by a CHL holder.

From the TABC website:

All alcoholic beverage retailers must post one of two firearms signs.

The 51% sign is required to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of their gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption or establishments licensed to sell for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts are required to post a sign that warns that the unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony. The holder of a concealed handgun license may lawfully possess a concealed handgun on these premises.

Sign required to be posted at an off-premise retail establishment:

•Weapons Warning Sign: It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law.

Sign required to be posted at an on-premises retail establishment:

•Weapons Warning Sign - If alcohol sales constitute less than half of gross receipts, the required sign says: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." If alcohol sales constitute more than half of gross receipts, the signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

If it's 51% or more, then you can't carry, licensed or not.

[jtpur]

Originally Posted by CelticSire

Do the signs say unlawful or unlicensed? Big difference as there are restrictions concerning the unlawful possession of a firearm by a CHL holder.

From the TABC website:

All alcoholic beverage retailers must post one of two firearms signs.

The 51% sign is required to be posted on the premises of establishments where the possession of any concealed weapon is illegal. These are establishments that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales constitutes more than half of their gross receipts. These signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption or establishments licensed to sell for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts are required to post a sign that warns that the unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony. The holder of a concealed handgun license may lawfully possess a concealed handgun on these premises.

Sign required to be posted at an off-premise retail establishment:

•Weapons Warning Sign: It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law.

Sign required to be posted at an on-premises retail establishment:

•Weapons Warning Sign - If alcohol sales constitute less than half of gross receipts, the required sign says: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." If alcohol sales constitute more than half of gross receipts, the signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.

If it's 51% or more, then you can't carry, licensed or not.

Very good, we should put you up for Texas CHL instructor of the year. Its a sign that causes confusion to a lot of folks, but your explanation is right on the money. I can spend an hour trying to get the point across to my CHL students here in Texas. Nice Job!!!

[CelticSire]

Aw shucks. Twern't nuthin.

[sootsme]

So, what does "shall not be abridged" mean, anyway? I thought our 2nd Amendment was merely in support of our God given right to defend ourselves and others from being attacked. Am I confused?

[Chris Brines]

And also to defend against tyranny in government

[Nico Testosteros]

What's a well regulated militia?
And don't we have a standing army now and no need for a militia for the security of a free State?

[DUCKHTR]

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!

Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.

[mlapaglia]

Originally Posted by DUCKHTR

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!

Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.

Very well said

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally Posted by Nico Testosteros

What's a well regulated militia?
And don't we have a standing army now and no need for a militia for the security of a free State?

As explained above, it seems that the Supreme Court doesn't feel that the Second Amendment depends on the need for a militia. Even if it did, the Constitution doesn't say anything about a standing army's negating the need for a militia. Many would say that it increases the need. Regardless, the Constitution flat says that it is necessary, and didn't solicit any opinions regarding the effect of a standing army.

Regarding a well regulated militia, that is a little like a well regulated double rifle - one in which more than one barrel can hit what it's shooting at.

BTW, the Constitution seemed also not to solicit any opinions on the relationship between the militia clause and the simple injunction that the right to bear arms not be infringed. This may have some relation to the the Supreme Court's view.

[DesertFox]

Originally Posted by Nico Testosteros

What's a well regulated militia?
And don't we have a standing army now and no need for a militia for the security of a free State?

I am a well regulated militia.

[hudsonvalley]

Originally Posted by GKC

Well, I thought so too...it would seem like that if a business didn't want you to carry a firearm in or on their premise, they would have a sign saying "No firearms." The sign saying "No unlicensed firearms" seems strange to me...since if you carry without a license or CCW permit, it is a violation of the law anyway.

Unless open carry without ccw is legal in Texas? is it? From what I've read, it's not..

[Frankenstein]

Originally Posted by Texas Star

I think the Texas liquor control board requires the signs in businesses that sell or serve alcohol.

This is correct. In a nutshell, in Texas, the carrying of a concealed handgun without a CHL (i.e. unlicensed!) is a misdemeanor.

In places where alcohol is served or sold, it is elevated to a felony. The TABC require those premises to post the sign to advise people of that.

If you have a CHL, then the sign is moot, as you are not unlicensed.

All the above applies to premises that make less than 51 percent of their revenue from the sales of alcohol for consumption on the premises. 51 percent or over, it's another sign and it's a felony CHL or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McBear]

Originally Posted by DUCKHTR

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!

Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.

Regarding 1st Amendment...Number 1. Look at the limits placed on protests by such diverse groups as Occupy, KKK, Westboro Baptist, Tea Party, any political discourse at the upcoming political conventions. All have or will have had limits on them. Either a requirement of permit, a time limit, a scheduled time for assembly, an assigned place for assembly...all to express political ideas with which one side or another will most likely agree or disagree vehemently. Or, if a majority disagrees...maybe no time or place at all.

I just drove through Mayfield Kentucky yesterday. Two years ago it was a hotbed of protest...a group of Somali refugees, after escaping the Hell caused by the torturous political regime in their home country had to put up with folks not allowing them to open their storefront church, or as they called it a Muslim Community Center. Yet another part of Number 1. They now have their Community Center after Mayfield did a cost analysis of how much their bias was going to cost in the court system.

To answer your question...cities from New York City to Tampa to Mayfield make laws restricting speech and religion all the time. It just usually isn't "our" speech or religion that gets restricted.

As for the 4th Amendment...I keep wondering when Castle Doctrine and No Knock Warrants will meet.

[boingboing]

The statement "The unlicensed possession" means just that. Unlicensed, i.e. NON CHL holder. Establishments that post the 51% sign for alcohol sales are for BARS. Any establishment can ban the legal gun carrier from possessing his gun but they must display a sign that references PC30.06, which covers CHL holders.