TexasCHLforum.com

pt145ss wrote:Ms. Rodgers:

It has come to my attention that recently the Alamo Drafthouse at Lake Creek posted a sign that would essentially make it illegal for Canceled Handgun License (CHL) holders to bring a concealed firearm on to the premises. I am writing you today in an effort to open some dialog between myself and management at the Alamo Drafthouse.

I would like to preface my letter by acknowledging and relaying the fact that I understand Alamo Drafthouse has the legal right to post the referenced sign. That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to communicate to you why I chose to get my CHL and why I choose to carry my handgun everyday. Prior to getting my CHL, I spent many hours discussing, with my wife and others, the personal responsibilities and the pros and cons that are inherit to carrying a firearm. It was not a decision I made lightly or hastily. It was not a decision I made based on ego or machismo. I wish we lived in a world where no one feared for their safety, however, the reality is that law enforcement officers can not be everywhere, all the time, to protect us. The reality is that in a life and death situation, when seconds count, law enforcement is usually minutes away. During my decision making process, I came to understand that a handgun is not the answer, but merely a last resort tool, a tool that could very well save my life or lives of my family. I ultimately chose to get my CHL because want to legally have whatever tools are necessary to protect my family and have them readily available to me. Every time I carry my weapon I think to myself, I hope I never have a need to use it and at the same time I am thankful that if I ever do need it, I will have it.
Does she really need to know all that?


Once I made the decision, I took the required class to obtain my CHL. This class not only tested weapon proficiency and knowledge about gun laws, but it spent a good deal of time discussing when and when not to use deadly force, as well as a good deal of time discussing conflict resolution. Once I was done with my class and passed all the written and proficiency tests I still was not allowed to carry. At that point, I had to be photographed, fingerprinted, and complete all the background checks. The background check took almost 90 days for the Department of Public Safety to complete. DPS checks local and state criminal records at each location I lived in for the past 10 years, not to mention the federal background check. The checks include juvenile history as well as medical history (in case one is unstable or has an addiction). DPS will not issue a CHL to anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony (ever) or to an alcoholic or drug addict, nor will they issue a CHL to anyone who has a misdemeanor conviction in the past five years. Also, those who are delinquent in child support payments or school loans are not eligible for a CHL. The state takes great care about who is allowed to have a CHL. DPS, as the issuing authority for a CHL, is required to publish reports about CHL holders who commit crimes. As it turns out, only .03708% of all crimes were committed by CHL holders as of 2005 (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... rt2005.pdf).

I understand that employees at the Alamo Drafthouse are unarmed and management wishes to protect them as much as they can. The reality is that by posting the signs the only ones who will be armed are the criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law, therefore, they will ignore the signs and carry firearms on the premises anyway. If a criminal wants to do harm, do you think a no guns sign will stop him from acting out his plan? Do you think it is possible that when a criminal sees that a place is a gun-free zone that he might see that as an opportunity to find unarmed victims?

Recently in the news (Colorado), an assailant armed himself with several firearms and 1000 rounds of ammunition, walked into a church that has 7000 members and intended to shoot as many as he could. After shooting two people, a citizen who is licensed and armed shot the assailant, stopping him from causing anymore harm. Had that church been a gun-free zone, i.e. posted so that CHL holders could not carry, how many people do you think could have been killed? Do you think that a sign would have made the assailant think twice about carrying out his plan?

Although I can not speak for everyone who has a CHL, I believe most have gone though a similar thought process that I have and have come to similar conclusion. I really enjoy the Alamo Drafthouse and I would really hate to do business else where. (Great point; important to remind her that you're not picking on Alamo, but rather wishing they would change their policy so that you could further patronize their business.) That being said, I do not plan to return to the Alamo Drafthouse until such time that the 30.06 signage is removed. Just FYI, http://www.texas3006.com is a web site where CHL holder can post information about businesses that have 30.06 signage on their premises. The Alamo Drafthouse is listed there.

Sincerely,

ME.