TexasCHLforum.com

I have seen 30.06 signs in AMC and Edwards Cinemas.
The point of interest is that they are all uniformly NOT in compliance with the law regarding the size of the letters. They are almost all the size of a common 8-1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper.
Has anyone tested the law on this issue yet?

I have not ran into any 30-06 Signs at the Movies yet.

Rhino1 wrote:My point was AMC is posted and Cinemark is not.

Do you also feel that places with gunbuster signs are posted? Because, as far as I, a CHL holder, am concerned, places with gunbuster signs and AMC or any other place that puts up obviously not 30.06 compliant signage they are not "posted" with sufficient or legal notification.

C-dub wrote:

Rhino1 wrote:My point was AMC is posted and Cinemark is not.

Do you also feel that places with gunbuster signs are posted? Because, as far as I, a CHL holder, am concerned, places with gunbuster signs and AMC or any other place that puts up obviously not 30.06 compliant signage they are not "posted" with sufficient or legal notification.

I tend to agree but don't want to test the compliance issue with under-sized signs with the correct verbiage.

Humm.

It used to be that concealed meant concealed.

Purplehood wrote:I have seen 30.06 signs in AMC and Edwards Cinemas.
The point of interest is that they are all uniformly NOT in compliance with the law regarding the size of the letters. They are almost all the size of a common 8-1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper.
Has anyone tested the law on this issue yet?

If the law can be manipulated on one side, it can be on the other. Bottom line, the law is there for all of our benefit. If they (and their massive legal council resources) don't feel it's important to comply with the law, they aren't trying to comply with the law. What is there to test? If they think the law can be changed to accommodate what they prefer, it can be for you and I as well, but the law doesn't work that way.

gdanaher wrote:Humm.

It used to be that concealed meant concealed.

It still works in many schools, stadiums and saloons.

Gosh, it seems like there are a lot of splitting hairs around here.

I think I"m hearing one person say, "Because one business appears to have tried to put up a 30.06-ish looking sign that may or may not be valid, may or may not be of the right size, and/or may or may not have a contrasting background, they prefer not to go there. Instead, they prefer to visit another business that doesn't make such attempt at all, and avoids any instance of a sign that appears to try to meet the possible intention of the 30.06 sign, irrespective of the legality or illegality, or enforceability or lack of enforceability, or any other modifier in the English language that may or may not be chosen."

There...does that have sufficient enough wiggle words included to stop the incessant wordsmithing? Why is it that we are attacking each other's intent, just because the wording is not as exact and precise and scientifically / legally accurate as the wording that you would have chosen?

Anybody (except a lawyer doing what they do best in the courtroom) understands the intent of what the previous poster was saying. All the incessant bickering over what language that should have been used (on this friendly forum) to describe the sign hanging theater is quite a downer.

victory wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Humm.

It used to be that concealed meant concealed.

It still works in many schools, stadiums and saloons.

Victory, it sounds like you're suggesting something that violates Forum Rule #4.

Vol Texan wrote:Gosh, it seems like there are a lot of splitting hairs around here.

I think I"m hearing one person say, "Because one business appears to have tried to put up a 30.06-ish looking sign that may or may not be valid, may or may not be of the right size, and/or may or may not have a contrasting background, they prefer not to go there. Instead, they prefer to visit another business that doesn't make such attempt at all, and avoids any instance of a sign that appears to try to meet the possible intention of the 30.06 sign, irrespective of the legality or illegality, or enforceability or lack of enforceability, or any other modifier in the English language that may or may not be chosen."

There...does that have sufficient enough wiggle words included to stop the incessant wordsmithing? Why is it that we are attacking each other's intent, just because the wording is not as exact and precise and scientifically / legally accurate as the wording that you would have chosen?

Anybody (except a lawyer doing what they do best in the courtroom) understands the intent of what the previous poster was saying. All the incessant bickering over what language that should have been used (on this friendly forum) to describe the sign hanging theater is quite a downer.

Sometimes it's just to find out where different folks' lines are drawn. And sometimes some folks new to CHL get to think through various things a bit and come to new conclusions or understandings after being exposed to new information they did not have access to before. At least, that's how it has worked for me in the past and why I sometimes ask probing questions.

JKTex wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I have seen 30.06 signs in AMC and Edwards Cinemas.
The point of interest is that they are all uniformly NOT in compliance with the law regarding the size of the letters. They are almost all the size of a common 8-1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper.
Has anyone tested the law on this issue yet?

If the law can be manipulated on one side, it can be on the other. Bottom line, the law is there for all of our benefit. If they (and their massive legal council resources) don't feel it's important to comply with the law, they aren't trying to comply with the law. What is there to test? If they think the law can be changed to accommodate what they prefer, it can be for you and I as well, but the law doesn't work that way.

So as far as you know, it has not yet been tested. Correct?

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/26278225/ ... te-theater

AMC in Mesquite made an off duty LEO leave when they saw his gun.

paperchunker wrote: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 (***AMC Theaters) are doing what OCT has done for the anti-gunners if that is a corporate policy, although I suspect it is probably a misinformed manager or employee. Either way, there are plenty of theaters that I would give my money to before AMC.

***Edited to clarify AMC Theaters, not LEO's

paperchunker wrote: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

Rrash wrote:

paperchunker wrote: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.