Austin TX: Alamo Drafthouse Lake Creek (update, signs gone)

[Kalrog]

Notwithstanding the 'properness" of their 30.06 sign, since the AD does serve alcohol for consumption on premise, are they not in violation of TABC rules if they DON'T post either of the two TABC signs?

They would be, but I am 95% sure that they have the regular "unlicensed possession" sign posted. Not the 51% version.

[DVDTracker]

Lauren is trying to pass the buck now. Someone on ar15.com received the following reply concerning their 30.06 sign.

Hi SBR and thanks for writing. Unfortunately, those of us who receive this email, including myself, are unable to dictate any policy at our store... including the one you are referencing in this chain of emails. We are the management, but not final decision makers. If you would like to further discuss this policy with someone above us, please contact owner@drafthouse.com and the owner will get back to you. I believe the owner has contacted the TABC recently over inquiries about our signage, which has been posted for nearing a year now. Again, I apologize that I cannot bring more to the table, but I am only a representative of the policy and not, contrary to the popular belief in many of the emails I have received, personally responsible for this decision. I hope the redirection is helpful to you. Happy Holidays!

Yours,

Lauren S. Rogers
General Manager
Alamo Drafthouse Lake Creek
512.219.7803

In her original reply to me, she said "I do support my businesses decision to post that signage."

[SC-Texas]

I sent an email to the owner and it was bounced back.

[Kalrog]

I sent an email to the owner and it was bounced back.

What was the bounce message? No email address by that name or something else?

[SC-Texas]

I have sent 3 emails with no repsonses:

The 1st emails:

Gentlemen,

Lauren claimed that she was responsible for the pro-criminal activity signs at your establishment until she realized that supporting the activities of criminals wasn't popular.

Now, she is passing the buck and saying that you, the owners of the Alamo drafthouse support criminal activity and not her.

Why is she passing the buck? Is she the supporter of criminals or is it you, the owners of the Alamo drafthouse who support criminals and their activities?

I'm curious!

Sincerely,

Sean Cody
Attorney at Law

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <sctexas@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2007 9:05 PM
Subject: Concealed Carry of Handguns at Alamo Drafthouse
To: Comments.Lakecreek@drafthouse.com, lauren@drafthouse.com, Sean Cody <sctexas@gmail.com>



Lauren,

I have learned of your decision to exercise your right to ban the lawful carry of concealed handguns by licensed and trained citizens of the great state of Texas.

You have turned your place of business into a gun free zone for law abiding citizens. The criminals will see it a a safe work zone because they will know that law abiding citizens who are licensed and trained to carry handgun will honor your posting of a 30.06 sign and will disarm themselves.

Your effort to create a safe environment by banning the licensed carry of handguns is actually creating an unsafe environment for everyone other than criminals. The recent department store shooting in Nebraska was in a posted gun free zone such as you are creating. In that case, only the criminals had guns. This is exactly the environment that you are creating. Lauren, Do you support criminals and their behavior? Your banning of the concealed carry of handguns by trained and licensed citizens of the great state of Texas makes your establishment a free enterprise zone for criminals and the posting of your 30.06 sign tells all the criminals that the Alamo Drafthouse is a free enterprise zone for them to conduct their criminal activity in.

I assume that you and Alamo Drafthouse are personally guaranteeing the safety of your patrons from their cars, to your establishment, during the movie and back to their cars since you have deprived your patrons of their ability to defend themselves and their families. Are you and your employer making this guarantee? Can you and your employer ensure the safety of your patrons from criminal activity on your premises and in your parking lot since you have made the decision to exercise your rights and disarm them?

I do not and will not patronize businesses that abridge my right to defend myself and my family by banning the carry of concealed handguns by licensed and trained citizens of the state of Texas. I have informed my clients, friends and business associates of your decision to abridge the rights of the citizens of the state of Texas.

Further, I have explained to these people that you condone criminal conduct and are taking actions that facilitate criminal conduct on and about your premises.

I look forward to the day that I can tell my clients, friends and associates that the Alamo Drafthouse does not support criminals and their activities.

Sincerely

SC-Texas
Attorney at Law

I sent this one today to help prvide legal notice for a lawsuit if someone is ever injured while going to see a movie at the Alamo Drafthouse:

Dear Lauren

I have learned that your cinema has barred concealed handgun licensees (CHL) from carrying handguns on or about their persons while on your business premises. I would ask you to take the following factors into consideration and reverse your decision. Carrying a concealed handgun onto private property is legal and authorized by the Texas Legislature so that CHLs may protect themselves from danger. If you prohibit CHLs from carrying a handgun while on your business premises, you will be rendering useless a lawful act on the part of such persons. Additionally, you will render them unable to protect themselves when the legislature has provided a means for their own self protection.

Common sense indicates that you are assuming the risk of providing for the personal protection of such persons while on your property. An example of reasonable steps that you might take to provide for the personal protection of CHLs who are disarmed while on your premises is to hire round the clock security guards to provide armed protection in your place of business and in the parking area.

It is reasonably foreseeable that posting signs indicating that CHLs may not carry a handgun on or about their person while on your premises, would indicate to the criminal element that the persons inside the store are disarmed and thereby make your business premises a target for violent criminal activity. Certainly, it would make it more of a target than the business who posts no sign at all, leaving the criminal element uncertain as to whether or not CHLs are armed on the premises. This was the intent of the legislature as the handgun is required to be concealed. The purpose of the statute is to create a tremendous deterrent effect throughout society in that the criminal element will not know who has chosen to exercise their lawful right of self-defense, and who has not. By creating a zone where you advertise that patrons on your premises are not armed, you are holding yourself out to the public as a place where the public safety desires as expressed by the legislature are void and prohibited, and you give the criminal element a reason to believe that your premises are vulnerable to crime.

Recently, Taco Bell was assessed eight million dollars in damages for a violent assault that took place on its property for failing to protect the persons at the Taco Bell. The law is fairly clear on this subject in Texas. "Generally, an ordinary business owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his or her invitees. Garner v. McGinty, 771 S.W.2d 242, 246(Tex. Civ. App.–Austin 1989, no writ). "A business invitor owes a duty to his business invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from intentional injuries caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know, from what he has observed or from past experience, that criminal acts are likely to occur, either generally or at some particular time." Id. at 246: Castillo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,663 S.W.2d 60,66 (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.)("there is no duty upon the owner of operators of a shopping center…or upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime, to guard against criminal acts of a third party, unless they know…that acts are occurring or are about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee: whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act arises.")

Thus, a plaintiff in a case against an ordinary business owner or operator will have to demonstrate that the business owner or operator knew or had reason to know that criminal acts were likely to occur in order to establish that the business owner or operator had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties. By contrast, the duty of a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment generally includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from assaults of third persons while on the premises. Eastep v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 116(Tex.Civ.App.–Houston{14th Dist.} 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.)


The attorney General's office of Texas has noted the following on this issue: "Once a duty to protect patrons from the intentional acts of third parties is established, whether a business owner or operator will be held liable for injuries to customers inflicted by third person appears to depend in great part upon the foreseeability of the assault and whether the business owner or operator took reasonable measures to prevent the assault."

I personally will not shop at your business premises if it prohibits CHLs from carrying their handguns concealed on their persons while on your premises for three reasons:
(1) You discriminate against individuals who merely take advantage of a lawful means of protecting themselves; (2) You have created a place where there is a higher likelihood of criminal activity; and (3) The absence of state certified and qualified citizens who lawfully carry a handgun means that I will be less safe than if I were in a similarly situated place of business that did not prohibit CHLs from being personally armed on the premises;

If you persist in this policy, I will advise the members of my family and all of my friends not to patronize your place of business and we will take our business to a competitor. Even a small price increase for the same goods is worth the personal safety of myself and my family in these troubled times.

Many businesses have considered putting up signs prohibiting otherwise lawfully carried handguns to be prohibited from the premises and have changed their policy to allowing CHLs to be armed on the premises. These premises include: Walmart and J.C. Penneys.

Moreover, I understand that the attorneys for the Texas Restaurant Association have concluded after a thoughtful and extensive review of all the factors involved that allowing CHLs on the premises armed does not increase liability in any way for a restaurant as it is a legislatively authorized and protected activity. This is so because the individuals involved have had a background check, careful screening, state qualification and certification of knowledge of the penal code, safety procedures and, have passed a handgun proficiency examination, both in writing and in physical demonstration. Several other association general counsel have concluded that allowing such an individuals onto the premises of their businesses does not raise the threshold for liability.

I hope that you will consider the above factors carefully, and in the end, come to the right decision and allow CHLs to patronize your business while exercising their legislatively authorized right to their own self-protection. Alternatively if you choose to deny me the legislatively granted right to persons to protect themselves while on your premises, you have legally assumed the risk of providing for the safety of your patrons and have made a decision to ban lawful carrying of handguns on your business premises after understanding all of the factors involved.

Yours truly,

SC-Texas
Attorney at Law

I am waiting to see if the email to the owners of the Drafthouse are bounced back.

[SC-Texas]

I sent an email to the owner and it was bounced back.

What was the bounce message? No email address by that name or something else?

The message was:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

owner@drafthouse.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 550 <owner@drafthouse.com>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown.

----- Original message -----

Received: by 10.141.23.7 with SMTP id a7mr1868576rvj.58.1198424521912;
Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:42:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.141.196.19 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:42:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9f51e8fa0712230742xd1b3d72oc86c3b55cb24397b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:42:01 -0600
From: "Sean Cody" <sctexas@gmail.com>
To: owner@drafthouse.com, lauren@drafthouse.com
Subject: Notice
Cc: "Sean Cody" <sctexas@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_4379_8666664.1198424521888"

------=_Part_4379_8666664.1198424521888
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

[SC-Texas]

Just i from Lauren t the drafthouse. She is just a frgurehead and has nothing to do with anything . . . .

Quite a change from her 1st emails.

My apologies Sean, I thought you and I had already communicated...
another Sean (same spelling), I suppose. Since I did not inform you
previously, you should email owner@drafthouse.com for further
communications related to this issue. The owner will be glad to get
back with you.

I am the General Manager, and I am a figure head for enforcing and
explaining our policies to those patrons who may have inquiries...
however, I did not set this policy into place nor any policy at our
store into place. That is how any business with a set of management
in place works. Policy is obviously not set by members of the
management team, they follow and enforce policies set forth by their
owners or board of directors, depending on the type of business...
which is the case at our store, as well.

I only responded to one initial individual who had written me about
the CHL policy quite some time ago because normally, I do respond to
the emails that come to this address. Since people seem to have
strong feelings about this issue, and I did not set the policy into
place, I do not think it forthright for me to act as if I do have
some ownership in the decision and continue to discuss this with
those concerned. It is a waste of time for those communicating with
me as I cannot make the changes that people seem interested in. I
personally have nothing to do with this policy, other than being a
member of our management team responsible for responding to the
communique of our patrons.

Again, if you would like to contact owner@drafthouse.com they will be
glad to get back to you. I know this issue is important to many, and
I hope that these communications are fruitful for all involved. I do
receive emails about other aspects of our business, as well, and I
must stay on top of those, additionally. Again with the Happy Holidays!

Lauren S. Rogers

You can try John@drafthouse.com is the owners email doens't work. He is the CEO & one of the owners.

[Kalrog]

The message was:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

owner@drafthouse.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 550 <owner@drafthouse.com>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown.

----- Original message -----

Received: by 10.141.23.7 with SMTP id a7mr1868576rvj.58.1198424521912;
Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:42:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.141.196.19 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:42:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9f51e8fa0712230742xd1b3d72oc86c3b55cb24397b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:42:01 -0600
From: "Sean Cody" <sctexas@gmail.com>
To: owner@drafthouse.com, lauren@drafthouse.com
Subject: Notice
Cc: "Sean Cody" <sctexas@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_4379_8666664.1198424521888"

------=_Part_4379_8666664.1198424521888
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

That looks like a spam filter rejection. Probably white list based. I can hand deliver it if you want me to.

[TDDude]

Don't you guys realize that Austin is the liberal armpit of Texas?

Get used to it or move.

It's as simple as that.

That was helpful. Especially when we have already mentioned several other AUSTIN locations of the same business that are NOT posted. The one that is posted is dang near in Cedar Park, not the downtown Austin of the other locations. And Cedar Park / Williamson County is not known for being liberal.

Although if liberal were to be correctly interpreted, what this Alamo location is doing is most certainly NOT liberal. Too bad words don't mean what words mean anymore...at least not in the political arena.

Perhaps my earlier comment was a bit harsh.

I lived in Austin for 20 years, from 1978 to 1998. I moved to Houston 10 years ago.
During that time, Austin was run by liberals (various mayors & city councils) who thought that if they just ignored growth, ignored the explosive real estate boom, the explosive high tech boom, stick their collective heads in the sand and ignore the infrastructure needs and allow any manner of "Liberal" trick around to stop any type of infrastructure improvement, the growth and expansion would simply go away.

I remember that for any type of highway construction that was needed, some tree hugging idiot would find some obscure bug, get some Carter appointee type judge to declare it endangered, and hold up whatever important project that was underway. This of course is an oversimplification of the 20 years that I was there but it was really more a rule than an exception. I remember parts of the South Mopac project around the Circle C Ranch area sitting idle for more than a year while all the bare earth that was excavated sat fallow during all that time creating all manner of erosion issues in the area.

They moved the airport and it took a couple years or so before they got around to even starting to building an adequate road to the airport. I guess the cab companies loved the wait. At least the proposal to move the airport to Manor failed. All those city council cronies who speculated on all that unused Manor farmland lost their collective shirts.

Granted, I've been gone 10 years but if it's not that way anymore, it's only because that generation of idiots has finally retired or died and wiser heads have taken over.

I really doubt that's the case since I've heard that Austin is attempting to take over the major traffic arteries and turn them into toll roads instead of taking the transportation issue head on. It would be a typical "Liberal" move to take a road that tax payers have already paid for and then make them pay for it again.

Anyway, Austin has just about the most expensive real estate and the worst traffic in all of Texas. There still isn't an East West thouroghfare through that town. All this can be laid directly at the feet of the '80's liberalism that I had the good misfortune to witness.

Austin still has good restaraunts though.

I can continue, but this is a Gun forum and not a political one.

Let's go shoot something!!!

[Kalrog]

Perhaps my earlier comment was a bit harsh.

I think it was. I will agree that the nickname of Moscow on the Colorado isn't unearned for Austin, but to give up an leave? Well I think that is the part that rubbed me wrong. Not the statement that Austin is liberal.

[Turfspanker]

Anyway, Austin has just about the most expensive real estate and the worst traffic in all of Texas. There still isn't an East West thouroghfare through that town. All this can be laid directly at the feet of the '80's liberalism that I had the good misfortune to witness.

Austin still has good restaraunts though.

I've only been in Austin about 10 years and I'm not letting the libs run me out.
I ain't leave'in - I prefer to stay and fight the good fight.

You are right about everything except the traffic. It's gotten worse over the years, but I'd much rather drive in heavy traffic here than in Houston or Dallas.

As far as Alamo is concerned - If they don't have a valid sign up front, I'm going in carrying. If they do have a valid sign, they are losing about $100 every 2-3 weeks from me. That's their choice, and frankly a bad business decision if they do. I don't worry too much about the interior of Alamo, but I do worry about the parking lots.

[TDDude]

Anyway, Austin has just about the most expensive real estate and the worst traffic in all of Texas. There still isn't an East West thouroghfare through that town. All this can be laid directly at the feet of the '80's liberalism that I had the good misfortune to witness.

Austin still has good restaraunts though.

I've only been in Austin about 10 years and I'm not letting the libs run me out.
I ain't leave'in - I prefer to stay and fight the good fight.

You are right about everything except the traffic. It's gotten worse over the years, but I'd much rather drive in heavy traffic here than in Houston or Dallas.

As far as Alamo is concerned - If they don't have a valid sign up front, I'm going in carrying. If they do have a valid sign, they are losing about $100 every 2-3 weeks from me. That's their choice, and frankly a bad business decision if they do. I don't worry too much about the interior of Alamo, but I do worry about the parking lots.

It's not so much that I got "run out" so much that salaries and housing in Houston are sooooo much better.

After moving out my salary (take home pay) almost doubled and I was able to purchase a 3300 sq. foot home for the same price that my 1300 sq. foot Pflugerville home cost. I have large Oak trees and 75' pine trees in my front yard. I can do without the pines but the shade keeps my electric bill under $400 in the summer. I live in a very nice part on the Northwest side and my wife stays home and raises/homeshcools the 3 kids. In Austin, it was a couple of front yard stick trees, two jobs & daycare just to pay the bills.

Austin is a very nice place but if one has a family and wants mom to raise the kids, Austin can be a very tough place.

Houston does have a lot of traffic but Houston has ROADS!!!. With very few exceptions, there are several ways to get anywhere in Houston so if one rout is blocked for some reason, simply choose another.

Didn't mean to hijack anything.

Let's go shooting!!

[legend]

The Alamo Draft House at West Oaks mall has a sign, but it's not legal. It's on a 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper. The text is so small that as I walked under the sign (posted above the entrance) I literally was unable to read it. I saw "Pursuant to..." and saw that it was in english and then spanish, but couldn't read anything else. I guess if I studied it for awhile I would be able to read it. Not that it matters since it's not legal anyway.... I would say it was probably an 8pt or 10pt font...

[Kalrog]

Just i from Lauren t the drafthouse. She is just a frgurehead and has nothing to do with anything . . . .

Quite a change from her 1st emails.

<snip>

You can try John@drafthouse.com is the owners email doens't work. He is the CEO & one of the owners.

Did you ever get any response via email? The offer to hand deliver it is still on the table if anyone needs me to.

*Kalrog is searching this thread for ideas for Monday's talk with his company's president.*

[NcongruNt]

The Alamo Draft House at West Oaks mall has a sign, but it's not legal. It's on a 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper. The text is so small that as I walked under the sign (posted above the entrance) I literally was unable to read it. I saw "Pursuant to..." and saw that it was in english and then spanish, but couldn't read anything else. I guess if I studied it for awhile I would be able to read it. Not that it matters since it's not legal anyway.... I would say it was probably an 8pt or 10pt font...

Here's the sign at Lake Creek - probably the same sign. I'd say it's more like 14pt. It is on an 8.5"x11" paper, and definitely not compliant as far as lettering height is concerned.