TexasCHLforum.com

Kalrog wrote:

pt145ss wrote:Above txinvestigator says seeing the sign is irrelevent but below is a post from another thread with a similar question. Here it is said that it is only effective if you see it. The scenario in this thread is that the 30.06 is not posted on the entrance but is posted in the booth for which one does not necessarily have to go to to gain entry into the building, have you recieved effective notice? The situation in the thread below is a mall with multiple entrances of which not all are posted. If one uses an entrance that is not posted have you received effective notice?

For argument sake...let's suppose for a minute that the AD did have a valid sign i.e. correct language, size and etc. but still has in posted in the booth. As a customer meeting someone there who already bought the tickets and never going to the booth. Is it effective notice? The mall situation, it meets all of the requirements...to include being posted in a “conspicuous manner�…I happen to enter the building from a door that the sign is not visible…have I received effective notice?

I agree that no matter where it is, once I see it, I have received notice. I would also have to agree that if I enter a building that is posted on the door (for example) and I had gone through that door, then it is reasonable to believe that I should have seen it and therefore had effective notice.

Real world example. The institution I bank at has a valid 30.06 (at least they did until they moved buildings…I do not know if the new building is posted). The lobby has two entrances. When entering from one side of the lobby, one does not see the 30.06 sign on the wall as a structural column obstructs the view. If one enters the lobby from the other side, the 30.06 is clearly visible. I will say that the first few times that i was in the lobby, I did not know the sign was there…those first few times in the lobby, was it effective notice? I agree that as soon as I saw it, then I had effective notice (needless to say I stopped going to that branch). A bit of a side note, one of the other branches is posted in the vestibule but the lettering is way too small.

Another situation. I went to a restaurant last week. I checked the door when I went in and there was no signs period. We sat down ate and then left. On my way out, posted on the wall next to the door was one of those “unlicensed possession� signs. I was glad that it was not a 30.06 sign but had it been one, I would not have seen it until I left. Had it been a valid 30.06 (considering it was posted in a conspicuous manner…although one would not see it until leaving)….would it have been effective notice?

txinvestigator wrote:

pt145ss wrote:

DVDTracker wrote:IIRC, 30.06 signs are supposed to be posted on all entrances to the building.

I don't think they are required to post at all entrances. However, If you do not see it, then it is not effective notice.

Careful, that is not true at all. Your seeing the sign is irrelevant.

Above txinvestigator says seeing the sign is irrelevent but below is a post from another thread with a similar question. Here it is said that it is only effective if you see it. The scenario in this thread is that the 30.06 is not posted on the entrance but is posted in the booth for which one does not necessarily have to go to to gain entry into the building, have you recieved effective notice? The situation in the thread below is a mall with multiple entrances of which not all are posted. If one uses an entrance that is not posted have you received effective notice?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If you saw one, then it's effective notice. If you didn't see one, then you haven't been given effective notice.

Look at it this way. What you saw or didn't see is controlling, not which entrance you used (assuming the one you used didn't have a 30.06 sign.)

Chas.

TDDude wrote: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.

Liberal or not, I have only seen 4 30.06 signs here in Austin, and out of those 4, only 2 were posted properly.

Maybe I just don't get out enough.

propellerhead wrote:The second and third paragraphs may mean nothing to this person. The last few is what matters. I'd put more weight on those topics.

pt145ss wrote:Canceled Handgun License (CHL)

Picked the wrong word in the spell checker?

pt145ss wrote:i.e. posted so that CHL holders could not carry

I'd clarify "carry". A non-CHL might ask "Carry what?"

Thanks for catching that. I put this together in about ten minutes and did not have a chance to read it a second time before posting and leaving work.

I will make the changes and send it off.

Snake Doctor wrote:

pt145ss wrote: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.[/color]
Does she really need to know all that?

In most circumstances I would agree that no one needs to know that. At the risk of sounding misogynistic, women tend to respond to emotions/feelings and men tend to respond better to facts. I thought I would try to open the dialog with feelings. I also did not want her to think that we carry as some sort of chest pounding ego thing.

Ok...So iplan on sending something to this nature...please feel free to critque before i send.

Lauren S. Rogers
General Manager
Alamo Drafthouse Lake Creek

RE: Texas Penal Code 30.06 signage

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 canceled 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.

Once, I made a decision, I took the required class to obtain my CHL. This class not only tested weapon proficiency and knowledge about gun laws, it spends a good deal of time discussing when and when not to use deadly force and 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 (DPS) 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 (incase 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 and not eligible for a CHL. The point being, the state takes great care about who is allowed to have a CHL. DPS, as the issuing authority for CHL, is required to publish reports about CHL holders who do commit crimes. As it turns out, only .03708% (not even one whole percent) 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, criminals 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 if his actions were unimpeded? 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. 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.

Kalrog wrote:Well, I have been there and it is NOT legal notice (it isn't big enough). With that said, the owner / manager is right. I support her position that she didn't try to mince anything with an "I have to do it..." thing. She said it was her decision and she is sticking by it. Good for her. Now we just have to convince her that she is wrong either with facts and persuasive emails or with the lack of funds (although since they are almost always full I doubt that one will work).

But it is NOT legal notice...

Do you “support� her decision, or do you admire her for her honesty and resolve even though it is misguided? I was just kind of curious as to whether or not you are going to email her.

I do admire her honesty but I do not support her decision.

DVDTracker wrote:IIRC, 30.06 signs are supposed to be posted on all entrances to the building.

I don't think they are required to post at all entrances. However, If you do not see it, then it is not effective notice. If they can prove that you knew it was posted or should have known it was posted (or something like that), then I suppose they could get you for the criminal trespass.

Does anyone know if the one on South Lamar is also posted? The last time I was there was to see Rocky 6. At that time i do not recall seeing it posted and I was carrying. That being said, I did not go up to the ticket booth (was off to the side smoking when the wife bought the tickets ...yeah i know...bad habit) so I guess it could have been posted there...but it was not posted on the entrance door and I did not see one anywhere else.

I will be sending an email to them later today as well. I wonder why they chose that particular Q&A to quote. Are they saying they are 51%? If so, do they have the 51% sign posted?