30.06 AMC Theaters

[SpringfieldXD9]

In the AMC theater in Dallas Northpark Mall, there are two 30.06 signs. But here's the catch: since it is in the mall, they are located on the ticket window. Now, I don't know if you're like me, but many times I'll buy my tickets ahead of time to skip the lines. That means I will enter the theater without EVER going to the ticket window. So in the case of this theater, it would seem those signs are not legal because I can enter without ever seeing them. Oh, and they do not seem to be 1-inch.

Legal signage?

[XDSConcealer]

I checked texas3006.com and all the AMC signage appears to be invalid. I'm not sure of the accuracy of texas3006.com but regardless I won't be going to AMC ever again. Cinemark has no such signage so that earns my business.

[C-dub]

In the AMC theater in Dallas Northpark Mall, there are two 30.06 signs. But here's the catch: since it is in the mall, they are located on the ticket window. Now, I don't know if you're like me, but many times I'll buy my tickets ahead of time to skip the lines. That means I will enter the theater without EVER going to the ticket window. So in the case of this theater, it would seem those signs are not legal because I can enter without ever seeing them. Oh, and they do not seem to be 1-inch.

Legal signage?

It's been quite a while since I've seen these exact signs, but aren't they on 8.5x11 inch pieces of paper?

[MikeStone]

In the AMC theater in Dallas Northpark Mall, there are two 30.06 signs. But here's the catch: since it is in the mall, they are located on the ticket window. Now, I don't know if you're like me, but many times I'll buy my tickets ahead of time to skip the lines. That means I will enter the theater without EVER going to the ticket window. So in the case of this theater, it would seem those signs are not legal because I can enter without ever seeing them. Oh, and they do not seem to be 1-inch.

Legal signage?

It's been quite a while since I've seen these exact signs, but aren't they on 8.5x11 inch pieces of paper?

Yes. 8.5" x 11" paper.

[Purplehood]

Remember, a Quarter is almost but not quite an inch in diameter.

[SpringfieldXD9]

In the AMC theater in Dallas Northpark Mall, there are two 30.06 signs. But here's the catch: since it is in the mall, they are located on the ticket window. Now, I don't know if you're like me, but many times I'll buy my tickets ahead of time to skip the lines. That means I will enter the theater without EVER going to the ticket window. So in the case of this theater, it would seem those signs are not legal because I can enter without ever seeing them. Oh, and they do not seem to be 1-inch.

Legal signage?

It's been quite a while since I've seen these exact signs, but aren't they on 8.5x11 inch pieces of paper?

Actually, I think they were "printed" on the actual glass with decals. Either way, the location still seemed to not be following the law. The signs have to be posted at every entrance, and if you can "enter" the theater without going to the ticket window, that would be incorrect signage.

[kjolly]

not looking for legal loopholes. If I'm not welcome not going to spend any money with them.

[chasfm11]

I checked texas3006.com and all the AMC signage appears to be invalid. I'm not sure of the accuracy of texas3006.com but regardless I won't be going to AMC ever again. Cinemark has no such signage so that earns my business.

AMC told me that they don't want my business and I'd hate to disappoint them. Cinemark is usually cheaper to boot.

[Art S]

Let's just say I'm a Cinemark fan.

[C-dub]

Either way, the location still seemed to not be following the law. The signs have to be posted at every entrance, and if you can "enter" the theater without going to the ticket window, that would be incorrect signage.

This is very wrong. See the part I emphasized in red below. It does not have to be at every entrance. It doesn't even have to be at an entrance to be seen prior to entry. If your instructor told you this I would be suspicious about anything else you were told.

PC §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.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(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

[Katygunnut]

Either way, the location still seemed to not be following the law. The signs have to be posted at every entrance, and if you can "enter" the theater without going to the ticket window, that would be incorrect signage.

This is very wrong. See the part I emphasized in red below. It does not have to be at every entrance. It doesn't even have to be at an entrance to be seen prior to entry. If your instructor told you this I would be suspicious about anything else you were told.

PC §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.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(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

This is all hypothetical since the sign in question does not meet the other requirements of this section. That said, if the sign is not anywhere near any of the multiple entrances to the location, then I would argue that it is not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". This is similar to a business that has multiple entrances that are commonly used and only posts a few of them. At a minimum, I think it would be a defense to prosecution if the facts were that you entered the location through an entrance that is commonly used by the public, and there were no signs visible when you entered. If someone has to go out of their way to search all possible entrances (and in this case places that are not even near entrances) to see a sign, then I think the sign is by definition not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

A similar situation would be a gas station / convenience store that put the 30.06 sign on the gas pumps, but had no sign near the door. Some customers will be at the gas pump before entering the building, others won't, just like in this case. Would we really expect a jury to convict a CHL holder because they stopped by the store to buy some milk and failed to walk around the entire premises searching for a potential 30.06 sign before entering?

Disclaimer - IANAL

[C-dub]

That said, if the sign is not anywhere near any of the multiple entrances to the location, then I would argue that it is not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". This is similar to a business that has multiple entrances that are commonly used and only posts a few of them. At a minimum, I think it would be a defense to prosecution if the facts were that you entered the location through an entrance that is commonly used by the public, and there were no signs visible when you entered. If someone has to go out of their way to search all possible entrances (and in this case places that are not even near entrances) to see a sign, then I think the sign is by definition not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

A similar situation would be a gas station / convenience store that put the 30.06 sign on the gas pumps, but had no sign near the door. Some customers will be at the gas pump before entering the building, others won't, just like in this case. Would we really expect a jury to convict a CHL holder because they stopped by the store to buy some milk and failed to walk around the entire premises searching for a potential 30.06 sign before entering?

Disclaimer - IANAL

I would make the same argument if I had to, but am afraid I would lose since the business that has a correct sign on even one entrance meets the definition of the law. I do not think this argument has been made in the courts yet because no one has violated it and been caught.

[SpringfieldXD9]

Either way, the location still seemed to not be following the law. The signs have to be posted at every entrance, and if you can "enter" the theater without going to the ticket window, that would be incorrect signage.

This is very wrong. See the part I emphasized in red below. It does not have to be at every entrance. It doesn't even have to be at an entrance to be seen prior to entry. If your instructor told you this I would be suspicious about anything else you were told.

I stand corrected. For some reason I thought it had to be posted at every entrance. Might have been something my instructor told us that was incorrect. Thanks for clearing it up.

This is all hypothetical since the sign in question does not meet the other requirements of this section. That said, if the sign is not anywhere near any of the multiple entrances to the location, then I would argue that it is not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". This is similar to a business that has multiple entrances that are commonly used and only posts a few of them. At a minimum, I think it would be a defense to prosecution if the facts were that you entered the location through an entrance that is commonly used by the public, and there were no signs visible when you entered. If someone has to go out of their way to search all possible entrances (and in this case places that are not even near entrances) to see a sign, then I think the sign is by definition not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

A similar situation would be a gas station / convenience store that put the 30.06 sign on the gas pumps, but had no sign near the door. Some customers will be at the gas pump before entering the building, others won't, just like in this case. Would we really expect a jury to convict a CHL holder because they stopped by the store to buy some milk and failed to walk around the entire premises searching for a potential 30.06 sign before entering?

Very good point, and I that's why the "at every entrance" idea made so much sense to me. Seems logical, but we know that doesn't mean it becomes the law.

[Katygunnut]

That said, if the sign is not anywhere near any of the multiple entrances to the location, then I would argue that it is not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". This is similar to a business that has multiple entrances that are commonly used and only posts a few of them. At a minimum, I think it would be a defense to prosecution if the facts were that you entered the location through an entrance that is commonly used by the public, and there were no signs visible when you entered. If someone has to go out of their way to search all possible entrances (and in this case places that are not even near entrances) to see a sign, then I think the sign is by definition not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

A similar situation would be a gas station / convenience store that put the 30.06 sign on the gas pumps, but had no sign near the door. Some customers will be at the gas pump before entering the building, others won't, just like in this case. Would we really expect a jury to convict a CHL holder because they stopped by the store to buy some milk and failed to walk around the entire premises searching for a potential 30.06 sign before entering?

Disclaimer - IANAL

I would make the same argument if I had to, but am afraid I would lose since the business that has a correct sign on even one entrance meets the definition of the law. I do not think this argument has been made in the courts yet because no one has violated it and been caught.

I'm not sure that I agree that a sign on one of many entrances meets the legal definition of being "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Sure it is visible to some of the public, but not all of the public that is visiting that store / location. To take one example, picture an Academy (I'm assuming most on this board are familiar with their typical layout). If a valid 30.06 sign is posted in the restroom area is it "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public"? The public is welcome to walk into that restroom area, and if they do, let's assume that they will clearly see the sign. However, not every member of the public who visits that location would typically enter that area of the store on a given trip, or possibly ever over a number of trips. In the same way, if I am a creature of habit and I always enter a Kroger or whatever through an unposted door, am I liable for the notice that was posted on a different entrance altogether?

IANAL, but it seems to me that the spirit of the law is that the owner of the premises needs to give fair warning that would reasonably be seen by a typical patron of their establishment. Posting only one of many entrances doesn't meet this standard, in my mind. Posting somewhere on the outside of the building, away from any of the entrances (as in the case of AMC) is basically equivalent to posting outside the restrooms, IMHO.

[C-dub]

I'm not sure that I agree that a sign on one of many entrances meets the legal definition of being "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Sure it is visible to some of the public, but not all of the public that is visiting that store / location. To take one example, picture an Academy (I'm assuming most on this board are familiar with their typical layout). If a valid 30.06 sign is posted in the restroom area is it "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public"? The public is welcome to walk into that restroom area, and if they do, let's assume that they will clearly see the sign. However, not every member of the public who visits that location would typically enter that area of the store on a given trip, or possibly ever over a number of trips. In the same way, if I am a creature of habit and I always enter a Kroger or whatever through an unposted door, am I liable for the notice that was posted on a different entrance altogether?

IANAL, but it seems to me that the spirit of the law is that the owner of the premises needs to give fair warning that would reasonably be seen by a typical patron of their establishment. Posting only one of many entrances doesn't meet this standard, in my mind. Posting somewhere on the outside of the building, away from any of the entrances (as in the case of AMC) is basically equivalent to posting outside the restrooms, IMHO.

Now now. Don't start trying to use logic to interpret the law. It only makes things worse.

I understand all you have said. The problem, as and others have mentioned in many thread on this very subject, is that there has not been a challenge in the courts to clarify this situation. There was even another member here that told us about his employer, might have been Academy, that put the 30.06 sign in the employee break room and no where else in the store. The question there is whether or not that was effective notice for just the employees or not. Obviously, it wouldn't be effective for a non-employee, but since it was not posted for the "public" to see was even effective notice for the employees? HUGE gray area!

Regarding your opinion on having a sign posted on one door, I think that too is a HUGE gray area, but that's just my opinion.