TexasCHLforum.com

Update 1/26: I went by today to check and the 30.06 signs are gone.

Took the wife there yesterday to see I am Legend and I saw a 30.06 sign posted on the box office. The wording was correct but it did not appear to be large enough. Regardless, I'm sending them this e-mail later today and will be CCing all their locations.

I've been a fan of Alamo Draft House since moving here a few years ago. The combination of great food, mainstream and off-beat movies makes it my first choice when picking a theater. However, my recent trip to the Lake Creek location made me feel like an unwelcome customer.

As I was purchasing tickets, I saw a Texas Penal Code 30.06 sign on the box office which states, "PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN." I was actually a bit insulted to see this. Getting a concealed handgun license involves fingerprinting, background checks and a mandatory ten-hour training class with a licensed instructor. It's extremely rare for a licensee to ever need to use their handgun. It's also extremely rare to have a licensee convicted of any crime. Police are generally more at-ease if they encounter a licensee during a routine traffic stop. They know that we've done the training, fingerprinting, background checks and have jumped through the hoops to obey the law and we're on their side.

Is disheartening to see such a good business that enjoys the protection of the 1st Amendment by offering a wide variety of movies and entertainment treat those that enjoy the protection of the 2nd as unwelcome customers. If Alamo Draft House truly does not want law-abiding concealed handgun licensees as their customers, then I will take my business elsewhere.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

If you're a frequent customer, contact information is here. Let them know. www.drafthouse.com/main/contact.php


I received a response today:

Hi Pete and thanks for writing. I have enclosed a link passed along
from another member of my management team that lists many commonly
asked questions and the appropriate answers from the Texas Department
of Public Safety Division of Handgun Licensing. There are several
answers to these questions that would qualify our choice to prevent
licensed handguns from being on the premise, however, the point most
applicable in this question and answer series is below:

"Q: Where can I not take my handgun?
A: Handguns and other weapons can not be carried at schools or on
school buses, at polling places, in courts and court offices, at
racetracks and at secured airport areas. The law also specifically
prohibits handguns from businesses where alcohol is sold if more than
half of their revenue is from the sale of alcohol for on-premises
consumption, and from locations where high school, college or
professional sporting events are taking place. You may not carry
handguns in hospitals or nursing homes, amusement parks, places of
worship or at government meetings if signs are posted prohibiting
them. Businesses also may post signs prohibiting handguns on their
premises based on criminal trespass laws."

Below is the link...

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... hl/faq.htm

Ultimately, I most likely will not be able to make you feel better
about our choice. However, it is our choice. The same constitution
that permits you to carry a concealed handgun, supports our right as
a business to not want the handguns in our private business. While
there are probably many responsible members of society licensed to
carry handguns, and you no doubt are one of them, being the employer
of 100 plus non-armed employees, I do support my businesses decision
to post that signage. Please feel free to contact me directly at
lauren@drafthouse.com with further comments or concerns. Where this
topic is concerned, however, I do not have much else to say.

Yours,

Lauren S. Rogers
General Manager
Alamo Drafthouse Lake Creek
512.219.7803

To which I sent back:

Well I am disappointed to hear that. I will be letting my friends and customers know that they too are not welcome at your establishment. If you have time, I would love to know your reasoning behind not letting licensees carry at Lake Creek. Thank you.

BTW, only law-abiding citizens will honor a no-handgun sign. Criminals will not.

I believe these are franchises and I don't know if the other locations post 30.06, but I will not be going to Lake Creek ever again.

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?

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 don't recall seeing a 51% sign. IIRC, 30.06 signs are supposed to be posted on all entrances to the building. These were posted on the box office, so if someone CCWing was meeting someone at the theater and never went up to the box office, they would never have seen it and would probably be legally ok to carry. Also, I don't think these signs had the requird 1" tall lettering.

Regadless, I will not be going back based on the manager's reply, and I'm passing along my e-mail exchange in hopes that other Austin CHLs do the same and let them know why.

(Edited to add) I was at Drafthouse downtown (aka The Ritz) a couple weeks ago for the Army of Darkness Quote-A-Long (what a blast and I won the quote contest and two free passes) and did not see any 30.06 signs posted.

pt145ss wrote: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?

Businesses also may post signs prohibiting handguns on their
premises based on criminal trespass laws

probably from that portion of the email. least that's what I got out of it.

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.

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...

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.

I thought her reponse was a refreshing change from the 'safety of our customers' mumbo jumbo that is usually the basis of replies.

The 'it's our right and our choice' was a stand up answer.

Having said that, it's probably a good idea to continue writing and continue boycotting.

If they think they are losing enough customers based on their policy, their decision could change.

I agree with Kalrog. I respect that the manager gave an honest answer (it's private property, it's my legal right, it's my decision, I made the decision for our business). No dancing around trying to please everyone with a one size fits all but not compeletely true answer. Do I agree that is the best decision for her business? No, but it is her business to run.

The one thing I don't understand is she clearly went to the trouble to get the compliant wording, she references the DPS site (Q&A) where the 1" requirement is described, so why didn't she put up a compliant sign? We all agree the sign isn't compliant (you still make take the ride, but that is another discussion), but why be so upfront about your intent and decision, get the wording in both languages and then miss the size requirement that is clearly in the document you reference?

I have posted this as well on The High Road.

I actually just got off the phone with managers at all the locations in Austin. I explained to them why I was calling. None of them except the manager at the downtown/Ritz location knew what a 30.06 sign is. The downtown manager only knew because of today's events. I explained to them what the sign was and why I was calling.

South Lamar, The Ritz/downtown and The Village location do NOT have 30.06 signs posted.

The Lake Creek location DOES have a 30.06 sign.

The manager at the Ritz/downtown location was very helpful and told me that the Lake Creek location is a franchise, and the TABC had told her that she should put the sign up, because the Lake Creek owner thought that more than 50% of their sales were from alcohol. (This begs the question that a TABC 51% sign is more appropriate, even if the basis for it is probably inaccurate.)

The manager of the downtown location continued and asked me if there had been something happen on the internet where some group got a hold of some information or something, because their offices had received a steady stream of calls and emails all day. For her edification, I told her about the High Road and TexasCHLForum.com, explaining we were law-abiding Second Amendment supporters and firearms collectors/enthusiasts who think the right to self defense is very important, and that it had been posted there. She asked if I could tell everyone that they (the rest of the Alamo theaters and especially hers) have no issue at all with licensed individuals carrying on their property.

I thanked her for her time and told her that, of course, it is her property and she can do as she likes, but we all very much appreciated her choice. She was a very nice woman and it was a nice chat.

It sounds to me like the manager at Lake Creek might not understand all the details of the penal code regarding concealed carry in Texas. I bet if she had an open mind to understanding the few extra things that she needs to learn about CHLs, she would probably take down that 30.06 sign. I believe that she thinks that she possibly gets greater than 50% of her revenue from alcohol (which is unlikely), so she needs a 30.06 sign. It is probably a misunderstanding that could be cleared up.

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.

§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the
license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public. (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Looks like I was a little too late to pitch in on the "are they posted or not" comments, but I will echo that I have visited all Alamo Drafthouse theaters in the Austin area and yes, Lake Creek is the only one to have a 30.06 posted. I'm curious why the folks at Lake Creek would not have a 51% sign... I have ZERO evidence to back this up, but as a patron who visits Alamo South Lamar AT LEAST once per week, I feel confident in saying that >51% of their business doesn't come from alcohol sales. My reasoning being that even if EVERY patron used a student ID or went during matinee hours ($6/ticket, the cheapest way to see a movie there) and NOT ONE of them purchased food, EVERY patron would have to buy at least $6-$7 worth of alcohol in order to outweigh ticket sales. Those are pretty stringent "if's"...

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.