TX Concealed Carrier Kills Sports Bar Shooter

thallub

New member
A stand up customer killed the perp who had just murdered the restaurant manager. Good on the stand up guy.


Quote:
A "good Samaritan" with a gun killed an active shooter who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas sports bar Wednesday night, police said.


When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot and killed Cesar Perez — a 37-year-old restaurant manager who'd attempted to calm him down — Arlington police said witnesses were afraid they would be next.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/go...police/ar-BBAL3Gc?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15
 
1) Don't mess with Texas.
2) Arlington has a pretty decent percentage of CHL / LTC holders so the results don't surprise me.
 
Even in Texas, the police just can't bring themselves to admit they can't be everywhere, and that we're on our own.

"We're thankful that the good 'Samaritan' acted quickly and decisively to end the threat," [Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris] Cook said. "We never recommend people get involved. That's a personal decision that a citizen has to make."
And what might have happened if the good Samaritan hadn't gotten involved?

Use of force and firearms expert Emanuel Kapelsohn told NBC News that, from his understanding, the man who took down the shooter reacted appropriately.

...

"But this good Samaritan obviously had the ability to do what he did," Kapelsohn added. "Who knows how many people would be dead if he had not acted?"
 
Sports bar hmmmm
Most likely has a 51% sign meaning "illeagl to carry" even with chl.
Good that he was there just hopeful he is not screwed over for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And what might have happened if the good Samaritan hadn't gotten involved?

10ish shot, most wounded, some killed.....Police would have used it to get money from taxpayers for things they want....MRAT's, new cars, leather gear, promotions, a keurig in every cruiser.....
 
This article addresses the 51% issue. Interestingly, the business was misposted as 51% and the patron was still carrying there anyway. Weird.

The business is a blue sign establishment, according to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, meaning alcohol does not make up 51 percent or more of its sales and that it was legal for the customer to carry his firearm inside, Cook said.

There was some confusion because the business had posted both a blue sign and a red sign. A red sign means no firearms are allowed. Cook said the red sign was probably a mistake.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/arlington/article148554034.html#storylink=cpy

It is good he was there, but as far as the bravado goes about Texas and Arlington, we still have a very low percentage of the population with permits and a much lower percentage that actually carry on a regular basis. Beyond that, not everyone will get involved. We don't see more of these crimes stopped because so few people actually carry and get involved. By all accounts, this sort of 3rd party/Good Sam action is still a rarity even in Texas.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
This article addresses the 51% issue. Interestingly, the business was misposted as 51% and the patron was still carrying there anyway. Weird.
I wonder if the red 51% sign was actually posted properly. I've seen establishments posted improperly, with the sign not plainly visible at the front door.

I once almost carried a concealed handgun into a 51% live music venue before realizing that the top 2/3 of the red 51% sign was covered up by a poster for an upcoming show. It's a good thing I stopped to double-check upon realizing that they didn't serve food.

I'm not sure how vigilant the TABC is about enforcing the signage rules.
 
He may not have seen the 51% sign.* The various TABC signs get posted in some inconspicuous places.

*Unfortunately, that is not entirely a defense if the establishment had been a red sign bar. While TSRA improved the law from the previous strict liability, the new mens rea still includes recklessly (i.e. If a reasonable person should have known it was a 51% establishment).
 
WI was slow to it, but I like the way they passed their concealed carry laws. You can carry in a bar, as long as you are not drinking.

Some states really create problems. Such as TX.

They also said your employer can not stop you from having a gun in your car, on their property, but has to be concealed.


I do know people that don't drink but go to bars to socialize. I see no reason why they can't carry a gun.

You could argue as long as below say .0?%,but that is hard to judge and can shift fast.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
*Unfortunately, that is not entirely a defense if the establishment had been a red sign bar. While TSRA improved the law from the previous strict liability, the new mens rea still includes recklessly (i.e. If a reasonable person should have known it was a 51% establishment).
Sounds like Texas (the land of my birth) is heading back in the direction of the infamous "traveling" exemption. How's a person to know if an establishment makes 51% of their income off booze rather than 49%?
 
Sounds like Texas (the land of my birth) is heading back in the direction of the infamous "traveling" exemption. How's a person to know if an establishment makes 51% of their income off booze rather than 49%?

To be fair, reading the statute strictly, the earlier standard was "doesn't matter if you didn't see the sign, doesn't matter if they never posted the sign, if you are in a bar and they make more than 51% of their revenue via alcohol sales, you are guilty.

TSRA worked hard to improve the language; but the best they could do was change the mens rea to reckless - which boiled down means "a reasonable person should have known...". So while I'd agree with you that the statute grants too much discretion to law enforcement, it is still a step in the right direction. And while the language still favors the prosecution, there are still many, many jurisdictions in Texas where that will be a tough sell to a jury.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
To be fair, reading the statute strictly, the earlier standard was "doesn't matter if you didn't see the sign, doesn't matter if they never posted the sign, if you are in a bar and they make more than 51% of their revenue via alcohol sales, you are guilty.

TSRA worked hard to improve the language; but the best they could do was change the mens rea to reckless - which boiled down means "a reasonable person should have known...". So while I'd agree with you that the statute grants too much discretion to law enforcement, it is still a step in the right direction. And while the language still favors the prosecution, there are still many, many jurisdictions in Texas where that will be a tough sell to a jury.
An improvement to a bad law is not necessarily a good law -- case in point. However, your point is well taken. It is an incremental improvement, and far better than I was able to generate when I complained to my town's government about our local anti-gun ordinance. I just dislike entrusting my fate to jury nullification.

At least Texas requires clear signage. I believe there are other states that have similar restrictions on carry in establishments that derive most of their income from the sale of booze for on-premises consumption, but don't require explicit signage. That's a real trap.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the red 51% sign was actually posted properly. I've seen establishments posted improperly, with the sign not plainly visible at the front door.

The improper posting was because the business did not make 51% of their income from alcohol on-site consumption sales.
 
Back
Top