TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

LabRat wrote:

paperchunker wrote:http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/26278225/ ... te-theater

AMC in Mesquite made an off duty LEO leave when they saw his gun.

I saw that today as well....I believe the lawyer and Tim Ryan said the officer had a "right" to be at the theater with his weapon. I disagree with that...businesses may prohibit admission or service to anyone so long as they don't discriminate. That doesn't mean its smart, but it is reality.
No shirt, no shoes, gun? = no service. If the business owner or person in charge decides they don't want someone in their business, they can make that happen.

AMC is notorious for their anti-gun stance. But if a business says leave and you don't, it should be trespassing...police officer to not.

LabRat

I guess he doesn't have the "right" to be there, but neither does the theater have the ability to prosecute him under Texas trespass law for carrying there against their wishes TXPC 30.05 has an exception for LEO's whether on or off duty, and 30.06 does not apply.

They can still declare him a tresspasser for general purposes and ask him to leave.

MeMelYup wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

LabRat wrote:

paperchunker wrote:http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/26278225/ ... te-theater

AMC in Mesquite made an off duty LEO leave when they saw his gun.

I saw that today as well....I believe the lawyer and Tim Ryan said the officer had a "right" to be at the theater with his weapon. I disagree with that...businesses may prohibit admission or service to anyone so long as they don't discriminate. That doesn't mean its smart, but it is reality.
No shirt, no shoes, gun? = no service. If the business owner or person in charge decides they don't want someone in their business, they can make that happen.

AMC is notorious for their anti-gun stance. But if a business says leave and you don't, it should be trespassing...police officer to not.

LabRat

I guess he doesn't have the "right" to be there, but neither does the theater have the ability to prosecute him under Texas trespass law for carrying there against their wishes TXPC 30.05 has an exception for LEO's whether on or off duty, and 30.06 does not apply.

Sometimes 30.05 makes my head hurt and this is one of those times.

Section (a) it says that an offense is committed if a person enters or remains on or in the property of another if they had received notice to depart and failed to do so.

Then in section (f) if says that it is a defense to prosecution if the person has a CHL.

And in section (i) it says that this section, I guess all of 30.05, does not apply if you are a peace officer on or off duty.

What is giving me a headache now is trying to determine the effective difference between sections (f) and (i). It surely isn't saying that even if I have been given notice to depart that if I don't I can use my CHL as a defense to prosecution if I don't leave, right? It does sound like that, no?

You only read part of it. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

ScottDLS wrote:

LabRat wrote:

paperchunker wrote:http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/26278225/ ... te-theater

AMC in Mesquite made an off duty LEO leave when they saw his gun.

I saw that today as well....I believe the lawyer and Tim Ryan said the officer had a "right" to be at the theater with his weapon. I disagree with that...businesses may prohibit admission or service to anyone so long as they don't discriminate. That doesn't mean its smart, but it is reality.
No shirt, no shoes, gun? = no service. If the business owner or person in charge decides they don't want someone in their business, they can make that happen.

AMC is notorious for their anti-gun stance. But if a business says leave and you don't, it should be trespassing...police officer to not.

LabRat

I guess he doesn't have the "right" to be there, but neither does the theater have the ability to prosecute him under Texas trespass law for carrying there against their wishes TXPC 30.05 has an exception for LEO's whether on or off duty, and 30.06 does not apply.

Vol Texan wrote:Gosh, it seems like there are a lot of splitting hairs around here.

I think I"m hearing one person say, "Because one business appears to have tried to put up a 30.06-ish looking sign that may or may not be valid, may or may not be of the right size, and/or may or may not have a contrasting background, they prefer not to go there. Instead, they prefer to visit another business that doesn't make such attempt at all, and avoids any instance of a sign that appears to try to meet the possible intention of the 30.06 sign, irrespective of the legality or illegality, or enforceability or lack of enforceability, or any other modifier in the English language that may or may not be chosen."

There...does that have sufficient enough wiggle words included to stop the incessant wordsmithing? Why is it that we are attacking each other's intent, just because the wording is not as exact and precise and scientifically / legally accurate as the wording that you would have chosen?

Anybody (except a lawyer doing what they do best in the courtroom) understands the intent of what the previous poster was saying. All the incessant bickering over what language that should have been used (on this friendly forum) to describe the sign hanging theater is quite a downer.

Rhino1 wrote:My point was AMC is posted and Cinemark is not.