Unlicensed possession restrictions

[Frankenstein]

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]

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.