TexasCHLforum.com

Even if he was 100% justified he looks like an old man that went bat-poop crazy over nothing and someone died.

Side note: I have had the strangest things happen to me in theaters (prob why I go so little now). Once I was at a children's movie with my siblings (I was maybe 18) my youngest brother (11 at the time) tripped over a step coming back to his seat (spilled his drink on the stair) and the person in the row in front of us threatened him and me with force (said he was going to beat our ***) if he did not be quiet (this man was 40+ years old). Now he had not been loud, beyond a whomp (as he fell)--and a short ow as I help him back to his seat. This man was unhinged. My spidey senses went off and I took out my umbrella and put myself between the unhinged man and my brother. Today we would have left the theater immediately.


If you choose to be armed it is part of your responsibility to avoid confrontation if possible. This includes not instigating a confrontation and being as passive as possible in the situation. That is training all CHL holders get.....I wonder if LEO's get that same training. Perhaps one can weigh in.

Yeah, I think this guy was going to pop eventually. You don't normally shoot someone for texting, even if it was a good movie.

Texsquatch wrote:Yeah, I think this guy was going to pop eventually. You don't normally shoot someone for texting, even if it was a good movie.

Yep, you are right. everyone knows you are suppose to sneak up behind them, snatch the phone from their hands and run out of the theater as fast as you can.

I said this in another thread. My first reaction was that I hope it wasn't a chl. Then I saw it was a retired cop. Neither of which will benefit our 2nd Amendment efforts.

It's a shame every incident is going to get highly publicized. We need to do what we can to make sure we don't give them any ammunition against us. Also, we need to better publicize when someone uses a gun for good.

CoffeeNut wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote: Shooter was a retired cop and I don't think he'd have to comply, correct?

Why do you think a retired cop would be exempt from a "no guns" posting in general?

Because iirc retired police officers still have a badge and limited police powers so why would they have to comply with a "no guns" posting geared toward the general public. An off duty police officer in the theater is the one who detained the shooter and I'm guessing he had his firearm.

I don't believe that is correct (could be wrong though) My BIL is a retired LEO and he does not have a badge. He does have to qualify on the range once a year to be able to carry though.

Great. Another badger causing problems for the good guys. What's in the water these days?

03Lightningrocks wrote:I have a hundred bucks that says the theater this happened in, responds by posting no guns allowed.

If that's true and the victims would have carried otherwise, the theater should be held liable in a big way.

However, if they had chosen to abide by state law, they should be immune.

mojo84 wrote:I said this in another thread. My first reaction was that I hope it wasn't a chl. Then I saw it was a retired cop. Neither of which will benefit our 2nd Amendment efforts.

It's a shame every incident is going to get highly publicized. We need to do what we can to make sure we don't give them any ammunition against us. Also, we need to better publicize when someone uses a gun for good.

And what is it with Florida? It seems that just about every crackpot/hothead incident happens there lately.

steveincowtown wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:
Because "no guns" signs have no force of law in FL, and they don't have 30.06. So even if they do post, it means nothing to licensed concealed weapons carriers.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30.06 was a good thing, WAS...and I get that it helped get the CHL laws on the books passed. That being said Florida Permit Holders have nothing to worry about when it comes to posting.

Exactly, Malls and theaters in FL typically post a "Code of Conduct" prominently displayed that includes "no firearms" and states you will be asked to leave if you violate it. Of course if you conceal properly and don't shoot people that are texting, no one will ever know but you that you didn't follow their code.

IMO, a properly concealed weapon is like your religious belief or your underwear color, no merchant should be allowed to exclude you based on what items may be in your pockets or UNDER your clothing for lawful purposed.

An antigun liberal voice of no-common-sense:
http://www.wwl.com/Scoot-Blog-Will-gun- ... pid=376456" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not sure if it is worth replying to. If you want, give it a try.

android wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:
Because "no guns" signs have no force of law in FL, and they don't have 30.06. So even if they do post, it means nothing to licensed concealed weapons carriers.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30.06 was a good thing, WAS...and I get that it helped get the CHL laws on the books passed. That being said Florida Permit Holders have nothing to worry about when it comes to posting.

Exactly, Malls and theaters in FL typically post a "Code of Conduct" prominently displayed that includes "no firearms" and states you will be asked to leave if you violate it. Of course if you conceal properly and don't shoot people that are texting, no one will ever know but you that you didn't follow their code.

IMO, a properly concealed weapon is like your religious belief or your underwear color, no merchant should be allowed to exclude you based on what items may be in your pockets or UNDER your clothing for lawful purposed.

In some circumstances, it seems Florida is more gun friendly than the great Republic of Texas. I love the great Republic of Texas. But our gun restrictions are a maze of land mines. I know for a fact I have inadvertently broken a concealed carry law or three by walking past signs over the years. Signs that can be easily overlooked when walking into a place while chatting it up with family members or looking back to make sure the kids are all in tow. It is easy to do. Thank goodness the failure to conceal/printing laws are revised. That one could have possibly created problems for me in the past. Baby steps, but it is getting better.

I'm sure many here have been annoyed by the lack of common courtesy displayed by cell phone users.

As a cranky old guy myself, I'm one of em i.e., the jerk immediately in front of me talking loudly about very personal things while holding his other hand up to the bank teller signaling she should wait for him to finish his call before transacting business.

Everyone behind him is inconvenienced, but what does he care? Hey, he's on the phone. He's important. We plebeians can just darn well wait.

Or the monumental jerk in a crowded ELEVATOR loudly blathering away, unbelievable.

I don't think blasting these pustules is the right approach, but I can see why some may finally go off the deep end...

Now get off my lawn!

As a cranky old guy in training, my solution to avoiding jerks in movie theaters is to watch movies at home - it's the best seat in the house.

I've found dinner theaters to be much better in this regard. Places that cost a good bit of money for tickets seem to avoid this. I've not experienced any issues with such. Alamo used to have the ghost of Ann Richards threatening to "Take Your *&* Out!" if you caused problems.

Evidently he followed another lady out an earlier time.

johncanfield,

Bingo!

All my movie watching is done at home too. I haven't 'gone' to the movies in years.

Come to think of it, last time was before cell phones, when people actually spoke to each other (during the movie) or put their feet on the back of your chair.

That annoyance is now almost quaint in comparison to the cell phone plague.