TexasCHLforum.com

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

Kalrog wrote:

SC-Texas wrote: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?

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

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

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