If the law can be manipulated on one side, it can be on the other. Bottom line, the law is there for all of our benefit. If they (and their massive legal council resources) don't feel it's important to comply with the law, they aren't trying to comply with the law. What is there to test? If they think the law can be changed to accommodate what they prefer, it can be for you and I as well, but the law doesn't work that way.Purplehood wrote:I have seen 30.06 signs in AMC and Edwards Cinemas.
The point of interest is that they are all uniformly NOT in compliance with the law regarding the size of the letters. They are almost all the size of a common 8-1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper.
Has anyone tested the law on this issue yet?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Cinemark vs AMC theaters”
- Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:24 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cinemark vs AMC theaters
- Replies: 38
- Views: 12408
Re: Cinemark vs AMC theaters
- Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:12 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cinemark vs AMC theaters
- Replies: 38
- Views: 12408
Re: Cinemark vs AMC theaters
Rotten Apple is right. If by "posted" you mean as most do, meets the requirement of law, then by your account AMC is not "posted" although your opinion is that they are which is wrong. Is not meeting the requirement of law by design? Many say yes. AMC is big enough to have more than adequate council and those kinds of things aren't done without legal council in large corporations.Rhino1 wrote:Don't want to get into legal vs illegal 30.06 pissing contest. My point was AMC is posted and Cinemark is not. I would prefer to do business with one that makes no attempt at preventing concealed carry, rather than bring my ruler and measure the size of the letters.
If you were to carry and for some reason someone found out, a Manager asking you to leave does meet the requirement of law of giving you effective notice. You leave or you don't, if you don't you can get hooked up for criminal trespass.