Cinemark vs AMC theaters

[ScottDLS]

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.

[Rrash]

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 this morning too. They are doing what OCT has done for the anti-gunners

Comaring COPS and OCT sounds strange but for some anti gunners maybe a gun is a gun.

I certainly wouldn't compare a cop to OCT, or CHL for that matter. I was simply comparing the "shoot themselves in the foot" mentality of OCT with that of AMC Theaters creating a "no exceptions" GFZ. Even most liberals would argue that police have a right to carry, thus making AMC look unreasonable to everyone who isn't extremely left leaning.

I will edit the previous post to clarify I meant AMC, not LEO's.

[C-dub]

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?

[MeMelYup]

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]

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?

Section (f) and section section (i) are very similar except that (f) provides a Defense to Prosecution to CHL if the reason for denying entry was that you were carrying a concealed handgun and (i) provides that 30.05 doesn't apply to peace officers if the reason for denying entry was that LEO was carrying a weapon.

Pretty much the same except one is a DEFENSE and one makes the statute not apply. Also the LEO can carry any weapon concealed or unconcealed. If you were given notice under 30.05 by a sign (other than 30.06 sign) then you could carry anyway and have a DEFENSE. If you were told verbally (yes, yes, ORALLY), that carry not allowed, then you still have the DEFENSE to 30.05, but 30.06 may apply if it is otherwise applicable. LEO's are not subject to 30.06, so ORAL notice wouldn't apply. In the AMC case the DPD officer's issue was theoretically lousy concealment. If I go to an AMC that is not properly posted 30.06 (most aren't), I just make sure I stay concealed. That way I don't have to fear the proverbial "ride" or being "the test case" that we'll never have. The LEO doesn't have to stay concealed, but this time the movie visit was ruined because he didn't. I don't give a darn about private business owners' "rights" when they don't properly post because Texas doesn't care about them in the case of LEO's, even if they DO post. Good for the goose good for the gander!

[C-dub]

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.

I read it all. I read it several times trying to understand it. That's why I noted that section (f) says it is a defense if the person has a CHL.

[mr1337]

Code: Select all

(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 of the same category the person was 
carrying.

This is mainly because the prohibition of concealed weapons by CHL holders is covered in 30.06 (not 30.05) and that's the section that would apply if proper signage is posted. In other words, if the door has a sign that says "NO GUNS" and I walk in with a concealed handgun and CHL, I have a defense if they try to charge me with trespassing based solely on the fact that I am on the property with a gun.

However, it does say that it is a DEFENSE. I am not a lawyer, but that could mean they can still pursue charges against you, but that they're not likely to hold up in court. That means you'll have to hire a lawyer to get the judge to drop the charges. (Unless you feel like defending yourself.)

This is a protection for CHL holders against properties that have improper signage and don't know the laws on trespassing.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

[C-dub]

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.

As a business open to the public, I don't think a person can be classified as a trespasser until they have been asked or told to leave and refused.