[Jon_R]

Originally Posted by Spiffums

What is your take on this when addressed in a crowd as opposed to one on one.

Post #42 I think he covered that.

[tomcon]

Originally Posted by Spiffums

What is your take on this when addressed in a crowd as opposed to one on one.

never mind

[alank2]

Hi,

Originally Posted by series1811

Open carrying in a theater less than two weeks after the Aurora shooting?

I understand the idea here, but what irks me about it is that what is someone's right today is all of a sudden not acceptable because of the actions of a madman and all the hysteria that follows.

One thing I'd really like to see happen is polite, well dressed and not threatening looking open carriers slowly change the perception of a "man with a gun" to a "citizen exercising his right to protect him or herself".

Thanks,

Alan

[jph02]

Originally Posted by Deep Blue

I live in Cookeville. I've been to that theater plenty of times. Until this story broke, I didn't know it was a posted no carry area. I've never seen a sign, so it really must not have been obvious (plenty of signs saying you can't bring outside food or drink in however).

Thank you! The sign can only have the force of law if it meets legal requirements for being visible. If reasonable people hadn't seen it, it's not properly displayed imho.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by Deep Blue

I live in Cookeville. I've been to that theater plenty of times. Until this story broke, I didn't know it was a posted no carry area. I've never seen a sign, so it really must not have been obvious (plenty of signs saying you can't bring outside food or drink in however).

Your comment speaks volumes as to the visibility of the sign.

.

[Christopherloaf]

I find this an interesting conversation and with regards to TN, since the laws aren't clear to me and I haven't been to their DPS website and read them I can't comment on the legality of the sign. However, it seems as though by most accounts and "hints" the sign was not legally posted judging by the police comments and by the fact that one member frequents that theater and didn't even see the sign. As for Texas, I took the CHL class Thursday the second and wrote down what the instructor stated was law regarding signage and still found there to be room for "interpretation." Allow me to share some fresh insight if you will: Here, if it's not a 30.06 or 51% sign it has no LEGAL baring to you being removed unless you're caught carrying concealed. At which point if you're asked to leave and don't comply you can be had for trespassing. Also in lieu of the 30.06 sign, it has to be CLEARLY visible, posted at entrances, (but doesn't say on doors or windows) contrasting colors, in Spanish and English and letters must be at least 1 inch in height. Now, good luck to you if you get a wally world that has that sign posted near the toy isle (hypothetically) and you have a police or security guard ask you to leave and you refuse. Same goes for the 51% sign...it has to meet the requirements of having the 51% in red and be clearly visible but again, good luck if you see the sign over the bar, get made and refuse to leave. In any instance where you're made and asked to leave, you're not going a good job of concealing anyway. I think the idea here is that whether or not it was done "legally," (a cop asks you to leave a joint or put up your firearm...don't be stupid enough to say no) it was done at least in a civil manner. At that point, now you know the place doesn't want firearms, make your decision then. Otherwise refuse to leave when asked and see what happens.

[MonsterB]

So they succeded in removing the guns from the legitimate ccw holders. Thats great. And any of the illegitimate guys, who no doubt didnt say or do anything, got to keep thier guns. Sounds very American.

[broncobuddha1]

I live in Knoxville and my understanding is that the sign has to be a gun buster or mention the specific statute posted earlier in this thread. The sign must be visible and posted at ALL entrances that the public wold normally use. So, having one sign at the Penny's entrance to the mall but nowhere else isnt compliant.

Russ, etc... I have a big issue with the supposed intents of signs. After the last revision of the guns in bars law here I've been in many restaurants that still have the old signs citing violations and fines that dont even exist anymore. Someone could argue the establishment's intent is that they dont want guns there. Well then they should post lawful signs.

I carry in these places because they arent valid. As far as I'm concerned the intent of the establishment is that they are pro gun and merely leave the old signs up to make the bedwetters warm and fuzzy because they dont know any better. Say its likely or not who's to say thats not what it meant? This why the law is specific about proper signage. If it were discovered that I was carrying and asked to leave, sign or not I wold comply.

I ccd to Batman the Sunday after the shooting. Never seen signs at the theaters here. I got in early but once the crowds came in I heard they were searching people coming in. No signs yet they were searching people. Crazy. I haven't been to the movies since but I fully expect to see postings now.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by alank2

Hi,



I understand the idea here, but what irks me about it is that what is someone's right today is all of a sudden not acceptable because of the actions of a madman and all the hysteria that follows.

One thing I'd really like to see happen is polite, well dressed and not threatening looking open carriers slowly change the perception of a "man with a gun" to a "citizen exercising his right to protect him or herself".

Thanks,

Alan

Unfortunately, every OCer doesn't has the same agenda.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by MonsterB

So they succeded in removing the guns from the legitimate ccw holders. Thats great. And any of the illegitimate guys, who no doubt didnt say or do anything, got to keep thier guns. Sounds very American.

And that is the issue. Property owners, business owners, they have to be shown that is the end result of their ban on firearms.

How we do that is worthy of a new thread...

[A6Gator]

Originally Posted by series1811

Open carrying in a theater less than two weeks after the Aurora shooting?

He knew what he was doing, and what he wanted, and he got it.

Wanted attention. Received same.

On a positive note, 3 for 3 on HCP guys. Who says people get permits then never carry...

[wjv]

Originally Posted by jph02

Since the sign did not meet legal requirements, the theater's patrons had not been properly notified of the no guns policy. As a result, carrying on the property is not a violation until the patrons were notified.

Which is exactly what the police did. They notified the people and informed them that they would have to put their guns in their cars.

They didn't bring in SWAT. They didn't arrest the CCW guys. They simple INFORMED the guys about the theater's prohibition and asked them to comply.

Hopefully on the way out they also informed the theater that the signs needed to be changed.

[wjv]

Originally Posted by broncobuddha1

Never seen signs at the theaters here. I got in early but once the crowds came in I heard they were searching people coming in.

I would never allow myself to be searched so that I could enter a private business, unless it was a high security facilities like a diamond exchange or similar.

I would inform the owner that because they were searching people, they had lost my business and my $$ permanently, and that I was taking my $$ to their competition.

[Deep Blue]

Per RussP's request, I conducted a little site recon of the Highland Cinema today. They have a sheet of paper taped up to on each door now, with the Carmike logo on it, saying basically "All bags and packs entering the theater are subject to search". The last line is "Guns and weapons are not allowed".

I still didn't see the original signs that have apparently been there the whole time, the one the news article referred to. I have no idea what they're going to do when the taped up warnings at each entrance start to get worn, they still don't have any form of permanent sticker type warning posted anywhere.

[SgtScott31]

Originally Posted by broncobuddha1

I live in Knoxville and my understanding is that the sign has to be a gun buster or mention the specific statute posted earlier in this thread. The sign must be visible and posted at ALL entrances that the public wold normally use. So, having one sign at the Penny's entrance to the mall but nowhere else isnt compliant.

Russ, etc... I have a big issue with the supposed intents of signs. After the last revision of the guns in bars law here I've been in many restaurants that still have the old signs citing violations and fines that dont even exist anymore. Someone could argue the establishment's intent is that they dont want guns there. Well then they should post lawful signs.

I carry in these places because they arent valid. As far as I'm concerned the intent of the establishment is that they are pro gun and merely leave the old signs up to make the bedwetters warm and fuzzy because they dont know any better. Say its likely or not who's to say thats not what it meant? This why the law is specific about proper signage. If it were discovered that I was carrying and asked to leave, sign or not I wold comply.

I ccd to Batman the Sunday after the shooting. Never seen signs at the theaters here. I got in early but once the crowds came in I heard they were searching people coming in. No signs yet they were searching people. Crazy. I haven't been to the movies since but I fully expect to see postings now.

So you're assuming the theater's intent (or any other business) is to allow permit holders in their building with weapons because they have old signs that YOU BELIEVE are not compliant. I hate to break it to you, but the decision as to the legality of the signs complying with TCA 39-17-1359 is solely up the judge. If you want to risk a criminal charge and/or losing your permit on an assumption that the signs are non-compliant, that's on you. Even if it's an older sign, it would still say "pursuant to 39-17-1359..." Although newer legislation has passed regarding HCP holders and where they can carry, the specific TCA regarding prohibition of weapons on private property didn't. It's still 1359. If you want to get into an argument with a business owner about his "old" sign, that's your business. I am going to take an educated guess and say the next sentence out of the business owner's mouth is for you to leave. If owners wanted weapons in their buildings, they would take two seconds and remove the sign. At least that's how I see it.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Deep Blue

Per RussP's request, I conducted a little site recon of the Highland Cinema today. They have a sheet of paper taped up to on each door now, with the Carmike logo on it, saying basically "All bags and packs entering the theater are subject to search". The last line is "Guns and weapons are not allowed".

I still didn't see the original signs that have apparently been there the whole time, the one the news article referred to. I have no idea what they're going to do when the taped up warnings at each entrance start to get worn, they still don't have any form of permanent sticker type warning posted anywhere.

Thank you very much.

Well, that certainly doesn't conform to the requirements set forth in the law.

HOWEVER, like SgtScott31 said, getting into it with management at any theater might not be the best use of ones energy these days.

This sign issue is tricky...

[jph02]

Originally Posted by SgtScott31

So you're assuming the theater's intent (or any other business) is to allow permit holders in their building with weapons because they have old signs that YOU BELIEVE are not compliant...

Originally Posted by RussP

Well, that certainly doesn't conform to the requirements set forth in the law....

This sign issue is tricky...

Agreed. If the premises is posted in a manner that a reasonable person should see the sign and understand it, then it's communicating management's intent. Whether it meets legal requirements is a technicality that we, as law-abiding 2Aers probably shouldn't be trying to split hairs over. If you want to stay armed, patronize another business. If you choose to ignore the sign, expect negative consequences regardless of whether you're right or not.

[broncobuddha1]

SgtScott, my understanding was that the new law as it applies to places that serve acolhol requires specific signage that are comprised of either a gun buster icon or specifically mention the new law.

I was merely making a point about intent. Its up to interpretation. The law isn't.

I obey all legal signs. And I carry concealed anyways and have never had a problem. If I were asked to eave, I would do so immediately.

[SgtScott31]

Here is the TCA regarding a posting notice. If you check the areas that I have underlined and bolded, you will see that the statute indicates a business owner can post the prohibition notice one of two ways. Either by the language described under b(3) (or something similar - i.e. it doesn't have to be verbatim) or the "gun buster" sign (weapon with slash through it).

39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings -- Posting notice.

(a) (1) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(b) (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (b)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

(3) (A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(B) As used in this section, "language substantially similar to" means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and

(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

(C) A building, property or a portion of a building or property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (b)(3).

(c) (1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

Any private business, whether serving alcohol or not, can use a sign that simply says something to the effect that "pursuant to TN law, the owner has banned weapons from this property and violation is punishable as a criminal act." It doesn't have to cite 1359 verbatim or show a gun-buster sign as many seem to imply. The owner can do one or both. If the sign is located at the entrances and fairly easy to see, then the judge isn't going to go easy on a HCP holder in my opinion.

[broncobuddha1]

Thanks for posting that. I guess what I was getting at was section c1 which states: "it is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or property that is PROPERLY posted in accordance with this section."

The restaurants where I'm seeing these really old postings aren't gunbusters, just the wording about posessing a firearm where alcohol is served, which doesnt apply anymore. More importantly, 100% of these signs that I've seen have only been posted in the actual bar area well inside the building, not posted at the entrance as required by law.

I might still get asked to leave if I were discovered somehow but I dont think that I would be charged with that $500 misdemeanor.

[SgtScott31]

I might still get asked to leave if I were discovered somehow but I dont think that I would be charged with that $500 misdemeanor.

That's true, but are you willing to take the chance? It will likely be the responding LEO's decision whether the sign was properly posted involving an arrest. Then it will be the ADA and ultimately the judge's decision as to whether the LEO was correct.

I know which sign you are referring to that they stick behind the bar. I would NOT arrest if that's the only thing posted. I would expect that most LEOs would not either.

[Schlitz]

I just find it mind boggling that you guys blame the man who was open carrying for this whole thing.

1. Who wants to patronize an establishment that wants you disarmed on their property in the first place? Why would I give the fruits of my labor to such a business?

2. The open carrier isn't causing the scene, the soccer moms, neocons, and liberals foaming at the mouth because the sight of a firearm are causing the scene. The ticket salesman who sold him a ticket without informing him of their policy caused the scene. Whoever called the cops instead of asking him to leave caused the scene.

3. I wish more people WOULD open carry, ESPECIALLY TO THE BATMAN MOVIE *GASP WHY WHY GASP* If everyone in the movie theater was visibly strapped up the likely hood of that theater being targeted for a mass shooting would be a lot lower - and if it did happen it wouldn't last as long.

INB4 - omg then everyone would be confused as to the shooter was and it could cause chaos > I'd rather have a little bit of confusion and chaos as opposed to some pyscho shooting in a barrel of fish

Can you imagine if James Holmes the 2nd was sitting in this theater planning out when he was going to exit to go get his guns and return to shoot? Can you imagine the feeling of relief he would have when the cops entered and forced the armed citizens to leave or drop their guns off in their car?

Can you image the gut wrenching feeling you'd have if you had just dropped your gun off in your car and 15 min. later into the movie a crazed madman started unloading into the crowd?

I'm not blaming the cops for this, they were right when they said it was the establishment's policy. Unfortunately the establishment handled this HORRIBLY from the beginning.

[BigSpenda864]

Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me

How about not doing stupid ****..

I am sorry but open carrying into a theater to watch Batman after what happened..

IS STUPID ****...


If your primary means of protection is your openly carried firearm you have lost and should probably not go out of your house.

Your primary means of protection should be your mind or mindset, and many fail miserably at this test.


I have no Issues with open carry when appropriate, I would deem this as attention whore carry..hey everyone look at me I am you protector.

Exactly!

[Schlitz]

How is open carrying in a batman movie after a mass shooting by a crazed man stupid?

If you find this stupid, you probably have hoplophobia.

Why WOULDN'T you open carry to a place known for mass shootings?

1. It can act as a deterrent. Perhaps someone who plans on shooting up a place will decide they don't want a gun fight if they even notice it. If they are hell bent on shooting the place up anyways then you're just going to be able to draw that much faster.

INB4 OMG YOU'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TARGETED - maybe? what are the odds that your movie gets shot up? okay, what are the odds the exact person in the theater saw your gun? okay, what are the odds that if targeted first he gets an amazing headshot and you don't have time to draw? This is a silly argument, and if you're really into concealed carry being so superior then you should appreciate an open carrier being the 'first target' so you have time to draw. Keep in mind, if no one is there open carrying, there still will be a "first target" and it could end up being you anyways.

2. As I mentioned you can get to your weapon faster in the event you need it. You obviously feel you may need it since you're carrying it, and there was a mass shooting in a similar scenario not too long ago. Don't tell me you can draw your .380 from your butt crack under a few layers a clothes faster than I can draw a Glock from a safariland ALS holster.

3. Just because someone carries differently than you doesn't make it stupid and it doesn't make them an attention whore.

[Mayhem like Me]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

How is open carrying in a batman movie after a mass shooting by a crazed man stupid?

If you find this stupid, you probably have hoplophobia.

Why WOULDN'T you open carry to a place known for mass shootings?

1. It can act as a deterrent. Perhaps someone who plans on shooting up a place will decide they don't want a gun fight if they even notice it. If they are hell bent on shooting the place up anyways then you're just going to be able to draw that much faster.

INB4 OMG YOU'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TARGETED - maybe? what are the odds that your movie gets shot up? okay, what are the odds the exact person in the theater saw your gun? okay, what are the odds that if targeted first he gets an amazing headshot and you don't have time to draw? This is a silly argument, and if you're really into concealed carry being so superior then you should appreciate an open carrier being the 'first target' so you have time to draw. Keep in mind, if no one is there open carrying, there still will be a "first target" and it could end up being you anyways.

2. As I mentioned you can get to your weapon faster in the event you need it. You obviously feel you may need it since you're carrying it, and there was a mass shooting in a similar scenario not too long ago. Don't tell me you can draw your .380 from your butt crack under a few layers a clothes faster than I can draw a Glock from a safariland ALS holster.

3. Just because someone carries differently than you doesn't make it stupid and it doesn't make them an attention whore.

You are ignorant of many things.

And your ability to rationally discus this subject is seriously compromised by your feelings.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine