American Airlines Center, I have an answer

[waffenmacht]

Guys, I searched this site Saturday morning August 4th 2007 for an answer as to whether or not I could carry at the American Airlines Center which was hosting the circus. I could not find a definite answer, but I saw that others had also wanted to know. So I left early, went to the AAC and decided to find out.

At about 10 am I arrived at the AAC, and went to the south ticket entrance, and found an employee of the AAC, Im not sure of his title, but he was with security and was just watching the glass door (which were not yet opened). I asked this individual what the process was for a CHL holder, should he want to see the circus. The guy just pointed at the "no firearms" sign on the door and said, "no guns allowed". I smiled, and asked him if he could refer me to someone that might know more about the law then he does, and he sent me around the west side of the building to talk with another security employee, who was searching and wanding the circus staff employees.
This security person was Freda Childress, a female that was working for AAC. I informed her that I was aware the property was owned by the city of Dallas, and that I wanted to know what a CHL holder should do, if he wanted to enter and see the circus. She basically said that would not happen, regardless of the law, they would not let anyone armed enter unless they were a police officer. Period. "Okay" I said, and asked her if she could refer me to someone that might be able to better help me.
Within a few seconds I was greeted by Kevin Melsby, who introduced himself as the event coordinator of the AAC. This guy was intelligent and professional. I explained to him my concern, and he stated that the AAC did allow CHL holders into "some" events. First he said CHLs were discouraged. Then he stated that sporting events were off limits, and I agreed. He said if there was an event, such as a "gun event" then CHL's would be allowed. "okay" I said, "what about this event, the circus"? Mr. Melsby stated no, because there were children here. I smiled and said "yes, I know, I have my 3 year old daughter here". I then asked him how the AAC could prevent a CHL holder from entering when the property is owned by the city of Dallas? He said that I must be more familiar with the law then him, and referred me to someone that he thought could better answer my questions. He gave me the phone number of J.D. Hancock, and said Handcock was a retired police officer and was in charge of this policy.
So, I called Mr. Hancock and was surprised he answered my call. I introduced myself, and told him I was referred to him by Mr. Melsby, and continued to try and find out why we aren't allowed to carry at the AAC, during a non-sporting event. This is where it gets interesting! Handcock, stated that we were allowed to carry, technically, but because the law stated a CHL is "defense to prosecution", it doesn't allow us to actually carry! Instead, if I we wanted to carry in the AAC, we would have to sneak past security and the metal detectors, then avoid the law enforcement officers at the show and if we were then caught with a weapon, we would be arrested. However, if we had a valid CHL, then this could be used as a "defense to prosecution". "Wow" I said, "I would think since you are a retired LEO you would not want to promote law abiding citizens to be deceitful with the Police". He changed his tone and said "Did you call to argue, or did you want an answer to your question?" I thanked him for his time, and knew I was getting nowhere fast. So off I went to enjoy the show with my daughter, and figured rather then take Hancock's advice and try to enter the show like a criminal, I would just unarm in my car.

Concerned or have questions? Here is some contact info you might find useful:

Kevin Melsby
Event Coordinator the AAC
(214) 665 4203
(214) 665 4850 fax
kmelsby@americanairlinescenter.com

J.D. Handcock
(vice president of safety for AA Center)
(214) 665 4827

[stevie_d_64]

I'm actually floored by your tenacity...You certainly made your point to each and every one of these people...Steve is impressed! Really I am...

Its one thing to question one person (usually) in situations like this, and we've had bucketfuls of these threads for years about this issue...

You went right up the chain of command, and when you got to the "top" you made your point, then when they had no real definitive answer as to "why"...They reverted to the tried and true fallback position of "Are you here to argue with me Mr.?"

Priceless...

When all is said and done, are you still thinking of attending the event anyway???

I mean, I totally understand that this is more for your daughter to go and enjoy herself, and your enjoyment comes from her happiness...I truely support you in that regard...I know your a good person to do so...And to pursue this issue the way you did is commendable...Most don't even get that far up the food chain...

Some may be critical (I know I have been in the past as well) about why ask? Why stir the pot???

But I think you explored a way that really illustrated the mentality/logic of people in these conditions...

I'm giving you a thumbs up on the effort...I'm hoping folks don't give you a hard time for pursuing this...You took it way farther, and with an incredible and clear attention to detail I recognized that gave this tired old issue a new face, and something everyone can learn from for your effort...

Bottom line, its discouraging, it insults mine, and hopefully a ton more folks sensibilities to know that even though the law is on your side, there are people who would rather make you hesitate, and consider the cost of defending yourself from the prosecution even though they imply that you are in the right...

I would still go...And with the idea that you are still going to have a good time with your daughter...But I would refuse any additional searching, and refuse to answer any additional intrusive questions to what you may or may not have on you...I have a feeling they may watch you a little closer if you do go...But hey, thats their problem...They created it...

I hope you have a great time...

[seamusTX]

What Steve said.

- Jim

[Lucky45]

stevie_d_64 wrote:

I'm actually floored by your tenacity...You certainly made your point to each and every one of these people...Steve is impressed! Really I am...

Well stevie might be impressed but I'm not. I think you missed the point made by Mr. Hancock which agrees with the law completely. You were given VERBAL NOTICE by 4 individuals acting under clear authority of the owner. So since verbal notice does not have to meet the requirements included in 30.06, THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION.
As Mr. Hancock said, if you happen to get by everyone and not be confronted about a firearm, then when they find you inside the event, YOU WILL HAVE A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION, because no valid written notice, government entity, etc, etc. NO CHARGES, just escorted from the building while carrying.

I think that is the whole point that people usually miss about this arguement of confronting building "STAFF" about their signs correct/ incorrect. At the point that you carry on a verbal conversation about a sign, you are guaranteed to be given VERBAL NOTICE somehow; so you are not gaining anything by doing it, other than boosting your ego.

[seamusTX]

You were given VERBAL NOTICE by 4 individuals acting under clears authority of the owner.

The only reason he was given notice was that he asked.

If someone simply bought a ticket and went into the center, they would not receive oral (spoken) notice.

This is a real problem area. Cities and counties post properties that they should not, according to state law. IMHO you are taking a chance carrying there.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

As Mr. Hancock said, if you happen to get by everyone and not be confronted about a firearm, then when they find you inside the event, YOU WILL HAVE A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION, because no valid written notice, government entity, etc, etc. NO CHARGES, just escorted from the building while carrying.

No, they are saying they will arrest you. THAT is where a defense to prosecution is available, in court. it is NOT a defense TO prosecution.


The bottom line is, someone will have to get arrested, pleasd not guilty, win and then sue the fire out of the city of Dallas. Only then will the follow the law.


EDIT:*** Arrgh. I was wrong. That is NOT a defense to prosecution, it is AN EXCEPTION to the law, and not a legal arrest.

See my post below.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Maybe I am missing something here. I think everything written above makes perfect sense if the AA Center were privately owned or leased. Verbal notice, etc. would apply just as has been described.

But if the AA Center is owned by the city, and not sublet to a private operator, then state law seems to forbid the city from banning firearms, whether via 30.06 or through verbal or any other kind of notice.

The law only allows firearms to be banned from specific locations listed in the statute, and bans government (or quasi-government) entities from banning guns from their property except for those listed types of places.

Where am I wrong here?

[Lucky45]

Maybe I am missing something here. I think everything written above makes perfect sense if the AA Center were privately owned or leased. Verbal notice, etc. would apply just as has been described........
But if the AA Center is owned by the city, and not sublet to a private operator, then state law seems to forbid the city from banning firearms, whether via 30.06 or through verbal or any other kind of notice.....

Where am I wrong here?

My interpretation is that it DOES NOT matter who owns the building when oral notice is given to prohibit a firearm inside. But if effective written notice is posted, then it needs to meet the requirements of 30.06. Also, it would not be valid, if posted on property owned by a government entity.

[txinvestigator]

Maybe I am missing something here. I think everything written above makes perfect sense if the AA Center were privately owned or leased. Verbal notice, etc. would apply just as has been described.

But if the AA Center is owned by the city, and not sublet to a private operator, then state law seems to forbid the city from banning firearms, whether via 30.06 or through verbal or any other kind of notice.

The law only allows firearms to be banned from specific locations listed in the statute, and bans government (or quasi-government) entities from banning guns from their property except for those listed types of places.

Where am I wrong here?

I am not aware of a law that forbids the city from banning firearms; only the defense to prosecution for the CHL holder if the location is owned by the city.

[txinvestigator]

Maybe I am missing something here. I think everything written above makes perfect sense if the AA Center were privately owned or leased. Verbal notice, etc. would apply just as has been described........
But if the AA Center is owned by the city, and not sublet to a private operator, then state law seems to forbid the city from banning firearms, whether via 30.06 or through verbal or any other kind of notice.....

Where am I wrong here?

My interpretation is that it DOES NOT matter who owns the building when oral notice is given to prohibit a firearm inside.

Correct.

Texas Penal Code
§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.


(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.


(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[Crossfire]

EDIT:*** Arrgh. I was wrong. That is NOT a defense to prosecution, it is AN EXCEPTION to the law, and not a legal arrest.

WHAT? TXI, wrong???

Well, at least you caught it and fixed it!

[Right2Carry]

The question I have is, what do you do at the moment you get caught at the metal detectors? I ask this as I have not had deal with a metal detector while carrying legally.

If I had been going to the circus and not been given a verbal or written warning, what would one do if confronted by the operator of the metal detector?

[Lucky45]

what would one do if confronted by the operator of the metal detector?

Texas Penal Code
§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

If your firearm is detected then they would tell you no entry with that firearms, by law that is your opportunity to return to vehicle and secure or go home, etc. If you create a fuss and do not want to leave because of RKBA etc, then you have failed to depart and broken the law in my opinion. From there on, you are arrestable and out comes the handcuffs and you have no support from me in my mind.

[stevie_d_64]

Well stevie might be impressed but I'm not. I think you missed the point made by Mr. Hancock which agrees with the law completely. You were given VERBAL NOTICE by 4 individuals acting under clear authority of the owner. So since verbal notice does not have to meet the requirements included in 30.06, THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION.
As Mr. Hancock said, if you happen to get by everyone and not be confronted about a firearm, then when they find you inside the event, YOU WILL HAVE A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION, because no valid written notice, government entity, etc, etc. NO CHARGES, just escorted from the building while carrying.

I was impressed with our friend here who bothered to take one for the team...His tenacity is commendable, and the way he conducted himself and the way he asked IS laudible...

I was NOT impressed with the 4 people he asked...

And he would not have been given sufficient notice if he had not asked, as the facility is NOT allowed to post the building because of who pays the bills and maintains it...

I think that is the whole point that people usually miss about this arguement of confronting building "STAFF" about their signs correct/ incorrect. At the point that you carry on a verbal conversation about a sign, you are guaranteed to be given VERBAL NOTICE somehow; so you are not gaining anything by doing it, other than boosting your ego.

Again, apparently no signage to confront and argue to anyone about...What we have here is a member of this forum who went out and got the definitive verbal desire of the facility owners and operators to restrict anyway, regardless of the law...And they will pinch anyone who challenges it, and force them to defend themselves in a court of law...

So in effect, they win either way, because they know people like us, if we wish to patronize their facility, we'd better comply with them or else...

Because we all know we are the real problem here...Right???

Edit: Ohh, and I absolutely agree with you that once you do ask, you are guaranteed an negative response...That has been the norm for as long as I can remember in these discussions...

[Lucky45]

Ohh, and I absolutely agree with you that once you do ask, you are guaranteed an negative response...That has been the norm for as long as I can remember in these discussions...

I don't consider it a negative response, they are doing their job. You may try what I do when I go to any event since I got my CHL. I walk up to the buildings and look for posted signs, left, right and up on walls. (Kinda perfected the "looking but not looking scan" of all posted signs on walls, so as not to alert the folks on the security cam about "that guy.") You know the 360 I do when you enter the door. Anyway, If no effective sign is posted, then no problem, I just electric slide my rear in there. But if I notice people being wanded with metal detectors, then I just go back to car and secure. I usually start looking way before I get to the door, saves me the exercise. And thus no need to have the staff "single" me out for their oral notice.
Remember, most of the times the staff are not there with bullhorns announcing over the air that you are not allowed to carry a firearm. So because "waffenmacht" recieved notice that he can't enter the center does not mean that everyone can't carry.