Verizon Theater GP - Pending

[longtooth]

Beefmobile,
I am a Chesty Puller fan too. Him & Patton needed to be turned loose & we wouldnt be in the mess we are now.
LT

[beefmobile]

that's correct, i all could find was the blue 'unlicensed carry' sign. I talked to one of the CHL instructors at my range and he went to a concert two months ago and there was a legitimate 30.06 sign on the SIDE door. Of course the 30.06 signs have to be at EVERY entrance...and if they want anybody to see it, it has to at least be at the front door lol. However, i never saw the one at the side door because i went into the main entrance. If i had been printing, it may have become an issue, as they were doing light frisks only on the area they suspected something might be hidden; i think they were mainly looking for recording devices, though. Like i said, my weapon was very well concealed and they would have actually had to do a full frisk to find it. I didn't see any police officers either, so i don't know what they were planning to do if i had to declare i had a weapon if they asked me what was on my hip.....maybe the security guards had specific instruction on what to do....but i wasn't going to ask!!

[sjfcontrol]

30.06 signs do NOT have to be posted at all entrances, or at any entrances for that matter. The law only specifies that they be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

[Dragonfighter]

30.06 signs do NOT have to be posted at all entrances, or at any entrances for that matter. The law only specifies that they be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

Which is ANOTHER law that needs to be cleaned up. I have been in places where the sign was not visible until you are on the way out and had been in violation for over an hour. The signs at GP Verizon were never legitimate, improper size and such. There was one at the front door and if it is not there now, it has been taken down besides being unenforceable in the first place (City Property).

[The Annoyed Man]

30.06 signs do NOT have to be posted at all entrances, or at any entrances for that matter. The law only specifies that they be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

Which is ANOTHER law that needs to be cleaned up. I have been in places where the sign was not visible until you are on the way out and had been in violation for over an hour. The signs at GP Verizon were never legitimate, improper size and such. There was one at the front door and if it is not there now, it has been taken down besides being unenforceable in the first place (City Property).

This begs a question.....

Preface: The whole point of 30.06 signs is to give you proper notice. Even thought the law requires it to be conspicuously displayed in a manner clearly visible to the public (whether at the entrances or inside), that is not a guarantee that a CHL holder will actually see the sign. It is completely possible, even in good faith, for a conspicuously displayed sign to simply not be seen. Until you see the sign, have you been given proper notice? And if you have not been given proper notice, are you truly in violation?

This is not something I want to personally test, but it seems to me that you have a (possibly sketchy) defense to prosecution if you simply didn't see the sign, and here is what I base that logic on: If a Hotel lobby is posted 30.06, but the sign is behind the checkin desk rather than at the entrance, you are not in violation of 30.06 until you see sign. When you first enter, and you haven't seen the sign yet, you haven't yet received effective notice, and you have a defense to prosecution. Furthermore, although you are already inside the building, if you comply immediately once you see the sign by turning around and going right back outside, you still have a defense to prosecution because you formally complied with the sign upon receiving effective notice.

But let's say, hypothetically, that the Verizon Theater places a compliant sign at eye level on the wall next to the men's room entrance at the far end of the lobby, but you never go anywhere near the men's room, and in fact, manage to enter the theater, get to your seats, watch the show, and exit the theater without ever getting near enough to the sign to be expected to see it, were you truly in violation of 30.06?

If the theater has security cameras in place in the lobby, you might be able to subpoena the video records and prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you were nowhere near enough to the sign to see it. This strikes me as one very good reason for updating 30.06 to require the signs to be posted at all entrances, and making it a defense to prosecution if they are not so posted—much like the change made to 51% signage requirements.

[saltydog452]

Which is ANOTHER law that needs to be cleaned up. I have been in places where the sign was not visible until you are on the way out and had been in violation for over an hour. The signs at GP Verizon were never legitimate, improper size and such. There was one at the front door and if it is not there now, it has been taken down besides being unenforceable in the first place (City Property).[/quote]


Which, thanks to your efforts, unenforceable signage can easily be replaced by correct enforceable signage. We, (bride and I), have been carrying legally off and on at Verizon for a few years now. That might now change.

Maybe its better to ignore rather than stomp on non-threating snakes. You could inform the mgt at a local Mall and local politicans that correct legal signage is missing on one of the entrances.

salty

[speedsix]

...I would like them to change the 30.06 to require a proper sign be prominantly placed at EACH entrance open to the public...a lot of places would probably not make the effort...

...this wording would be clear and sufficient: The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public from outside or immediately inside each public, service, and employee entrance. Signs required by this section are not required to be posted by fire exits, interior entrances, or entrances to individual resident rooms.

[saltydog452]

The safest place for my pistol is on my hip, not in the trunk of the car. Management companys aren't ignorant of the law. Non-compliant signage that doesn't carry enforceable weight seems to satisfy everyone. Well, almost everyone.

salty

[Dragonfighter]

Which, thanks to your efforts, unenforceable signage can easily be replaced by correct enforceable signage. We, (bride and I), have been carrying legally off and on at Verizon for a few years now. That might now change.

Maybe its better to ignore rather than stomp on non-threating snakes. You could inform the mgt at a local Mall and local politicans that correct legal signage is missing on one of the entrances.

salty

I am sorry to have possibly caused you and your lovely bride any inconvenience but I think your concern is misplaced. Let's review:

1) Verizon GP is owned by the city of Grand Prairie so ANY sign is unenforceable regardless of size, wording or placement. So if my "efforts" sparked an onslaught of carefully worded 30.06 signs suddenly overwhelming all of the entrances to Verizon GP, the situation would not have changed legally and your legal right to carry there remains intact.

2) Saying I'm "stomping on non-threatening snakes" (sleeping dogs and all that) is nonsense. What we have is yet another city that ignores preemption and has posted in violation of the law and has even told LEO's via their FAQ that they cannot carry there as well. This, and the initial arguments posted by the city attorney demonstrates that this is/was most definitely a "threatening" snake that could "bite" a licensee should they be outed and have to pay to get their wrongful charges dismissed.

3) I had, for a brief period, the ear of the city attorney and we exchanged some good information. The FAQ on the website has not changed but an obvious (if not compliant) 30.06 sign has been removed. I, others I have spoken with and the OP have all reported no trouble when carrying at that particular venue. I would argue that my "efforts", rather than endangering your legal ability to carry there, have served to make the possibility of harassment less likely.

Bemoaning perceived dangers arising from contacting the city about Verizon GP is a non-starter as they are prohibited by law from restricting access to CHL holders. It is not even in the same park as telling the owner of a convenience store that he/she is non-compliant.

I must ask how much we are as a community, are willing to keep looking the other way while cities and counties flaunt state law? How many times are we to ignore these scofflaws as they harass law abiding citizens exercising their God given right to self defense?

[SixGunSal]

I was just there last night (2/17/2014) for a concert with my daughter, they don't wand you or pat you down but the do glance in the ladies bags. They do have the Texas PC 30.06 sign up now, saw 2 of the paper posters scotched taped to the front picture window. I didn't even see it till we left because there is like 20 doors and we went in one of the middle doors, but i guess technically it's in "plain Sight" even if not on the doors. So leave your gun locked in your truck and bring something else useful, maybe something made out of carbon fiber or injection molded plastic....

[cb1000rider]

So leave your gun locked in your truck and bring something else useful, maybe something made out of carbon fiber or injection molded plastic....

Why? The city can't ban firearms on a building that they own, regardless of what verbiage they choose to use. Court circumstances, etc excluded...

The guys that are chastising Dragonfighter for calling this to the attention of the city attorney - the posting of additional signage, regardless of type, makes the restriction no more enforceable than the original policy. We've got a case of a city attorney that knows the signs don't change anything about being able to prosecute someone who violates the made up policy, but they choose to post the signs anyway as it will scare of some % of the population from exercising the rights that they've been granted.

If GP chose to arrest on this, they city attorney is on notice... One day there will be some caselaw on this, or at least a case reference tied to a civil settlement. That reference will result in policy change.

[AdioSS]

Well, I'm here now. I didn't see any 30.06 or 30.07 signs, but they do have the red 51% signs posted. Their claim is that, even though hundreds of tickets are sold for the concert, the signs are there because over 51% of the revenue "on the day of" the event is from alcohol sales.

[Morbidrealities]

Well, I'm here now. I didn't see any 30.06 or 30.07 signs, but they do have the red 51% signs posted. Their claim is that, even though hundreds of tickets are sold for the concert, the signs are there because over 51% of the revenue "on the day of" the event is from alcohol sales.

Depending on the concert this could absolutely be true.

[AdioSS]

It was a rock concert & their drink prices are stupid high.

Oh yeah, they had the walk through metal detectors at each door in addition to the wands. Funny thing is, when I walked through it beeped, but nobody stopped me.

[LucasMcCain]

Well, I'm here now. I didn't see any 30.06 or 30.07 signs, but they do have the red 51% signs posted. Their claim is that, even though hundreds of tickets are sold for the concert, the signs are there because over 51% of the revenue "on the day of" the event is from alcohol sales.

The way they get around that is that the alcohol is not sold by the venue. It is sold by a separate business. That business only sells alcohol, so they are a 51% location. Their address is the same as the venue's, so the whole venue is then a 51% location. This is totally not what was intended by the law, and needs to be addressed in the legislature, but it is the way it works right now.