Cookeville, TN: Gun at 'Batman' causes stir [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Cookeville, TN: Gun at 'Batman' causes stir


RussP
07-31-2012, 21:27
http://www.herald-citizen.com/view/full_story/19601544/article-Gun-at--Batman--causes-stir?instance=most_popular

Guy was legally carrying. Police are called by a theater worker.

Police arrive, go into the room showing Batman film searching for the guy.

Theater worker stops the film, turns up the lights.

When lights come up, the police Sgt tells everyone there is no threat, no known danger, and he asks, "Who in here has a gun carry permit?"

Three guys stand up.

"Who has their weapon on them?" Same three guys stand. Only one of the three is OCing.

The Sgt tells them that the theater policy is no firearms and he asks them to take them back to their vehicles. They do and come back. No one in the theater panicked. Everyone was quiet and calm.

There's a little more to the story, but that's the good part.

:cool:

Lior
07-31-2012, 21:34
Wasn't there, but my inclination would have been not to come back.

Shinesintx
07-31-2012, 21:39
It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys.

zbusdriver
07-31-2012, 21:57
It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys.open carry would have...never mind...

Louisville Glocker
07-31-2012, 22:26
Seems like the situation was handled pretty well by the police.

rhikdavis
07-31-2012, 22:33
Was the sgt wearing his hat?

Misty02
08-01-2012, 06:00
It seems this was handled well without causing any panic, those present also learned that all three were legal.

Wasn't there, but my inclination would have been not to come back.

I agree. There is no way that (1) I知 announcing to the world there is an unattended handgun in the vehicle, even if it is in the car-safe and (2) that I知 letting them keep my money if the sign was not displayed where I could see it before I bought the ticket.

It痴 ok that they don稚 want armed people in their place, just make sure they know about it before they spend their money. Put it on the website and in a predominant place by the entrance, in the case of theaters where you buy ticket at a window outside, also on the window where tickets are sold.

.

jph02
08-01-2012, 07:30
Seems like the situation was handled pretty well by the police.
This is BS. Why are the cops enforcing a theater policy? Does this mean police should be enforcing closed shoe requirements at the amusement park or county fair? This is management's problem, not law enforcement's.

...I agree. There is no way that (1) I知 announcing to the world there is an unattended handgun in the vehicle, even if it is in the car-safe and (2) that I知 letting them keep my money if the sign was not displayed where I could see it before I bought the ticket...
This. In fact, I'd be asking for a refund even if I wasn't carrying because they interrupted the film for no good reason other than their stupid sign was too small and their management too inept to handle it before the movie started. Why did the ticket person sell a ticket to the OC guy and why did the ticket taker take it and point him to his theater? :shakehead:

series1811
08-01-2012, 07:33
Open carrying in a theater less than two weeks after the Aurora shooting?

He knew what he was doing, and what he wanted, and he got it.

Arc Angel
08-01-2012, 08:06
It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys.

A truly profound observation! :thumbsup:

(If we're not careful, someday, that'll be the epitaph on the tombstone!) ;)

Brucev
08-01-2012, 08:13
"The Sgt tells them that the theater policy is no firearms and he asks them to take them back to their vehicles. They do and come back. No one in the theater panicked. Everyone was quiet and calm." Good. The property owner has every right to set theater policy. Comply or leave. No excuse to do otherwise. Entire matter well handled.

Bren
08-01-2012, 08:31
It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys.

In the movie and in the bigger picture, that is to be expected by everyone but the OC activists. I really wouldmn't be surprised if some of them turned out to be anti-gunners intentionally trying to stir up anti-gun opinion. I mean, considering the Colorado shooting, at the same movie, and being in a state where anybody who can OC can CC - how stupid did this guy have to be?

Open carrying in a theater less than two weeks after the Aurora shooting?

He knew what he was doing, and what he wanted, and he got it.

You are correct. I'm just surprised he didn't vieotape it and put it on youtube.

jeanderson
08-01-2012, 09:07
Was this a Cinemark theater, or another theater with a no gun policy? I guess once all theaters become gun-free zones, we'll all be safe.

billkill
08-01-2012, 09:39
In fact, I'd be asking for a refund even if I wasn't carrying because they interrupted the film for no good reason other than their stupid sign was too small and their management too inept to handle it before the movie started. Why did the ticket person sell a ticket to the OC guy and why did the ticket taker take it and point him to his theater? :shakehead:
Agreed
ETA OC guy was stupid...there is a time and place...that wasn't it

RussP
08-01-2012, 10:10
Was this a Cinemark theater, or another theater with a no gun policy? I guess once all theaters become gun-free zones, we'll all be safe.The name is in the third, maybe the fourth (sorry, can't remember which) paragraph of the linked news story.

tomcon
08-01-2012, 12:02
The name is in the third, maybe the fourth (sorry, can't remember which) paragraph of the linked news story.

Carmike Highland Cinemas

Guess I will have to look closer the next time I get out to the local Carmike theater. If it is posted passed the ticket booth I will see one last movie in their theater. I always cc in these circumstances.

RussP
08-01-2012, 12:25
Carmike Highland Cinemas

Guess I will have to look closer the next time I get out to the local Carmike theater. If it is posted passed the ticket booth I will see one last movie in their theater. I always cc in these circumstances.Thanks, tomcon!

Southswede
08-01-2012, 12:40
http://www.herald-citizen.com/view/full_story/19601544/article-Gun-at--Batman--causes-stir?instance=most_popular

Guy was legally carrying. Police are called by a theater worker.

Police arrive, go into the room showing Batman film searching for the guy.

Theater worker stops the film, turns up the lights.

When lights come up, the police Sgt tells everyone there is no threat, no known danger, and he asks, "Who in here has a gun carry permit?"

Three guys stand up.

"Who has their weapon on them?" Same three guys stand. Only one of the three is OCing.

The Sgt tells them that the theater policy is no firearms and he asks them to take them back to their vehicles. They do and come back. No one in the theater panicked. Everyone was quiet and calm.

There's a little more to the story, but that's the good part.

:cool:

Wonder who/whom would be held liable if the vehicle were to be broken into and harm caused by the stolen and unsecured forearm........

Bren
08-01-2012, 13:42
Wonder who/whom would be held liable if the vehicle were to be broken into and harm caused by the stolen and unsecured forearm........

The thief would be liable, unless your state passes some special statute on the subject. In ordinary tort liability, if there isn't a state law against leaving the gun in the car, the thief is a superseding cause of any harm he causes, so the gun owner is not liable.

tomcon
08-01-2012, 16:56
Thanks, tomcon!

Your welcome RussP.

After thinking about if this situation had happened to me here in Indiana and if the sequence of events is accurate, I don't think I would have stood up.

It appears that carrying in a theater is legal in Tennessee. If the sign was that hard to find and the Officer did not state at the beginning that he was enforcing the "No Guns" policy of the theater.

Did he actually have legal authority to ask who was licensed or carrying a gun?

RussP
08-01-2012, 17:21
Your welcome RussP.

After thinking about if this situation had happened to me here in Indiana and if the sequence of events is accurate, I don't think I would have stood up.

It appears that carrying in a theater is legal in Tennessee. If the sign was that hard to find and the Officer did not state at the beginning that he was enforcing the "No Guns" policy of the theater.

Did he actually have legal authority to ask who was licensed or carrying a gun?Signs have the force of law in Tennessee.

Management at the theater reported a violation of that law.

Police came to investigate.

Part of the investigation is determining the identity of the violator.

Tennessee law says when a permit holder is asked they must present their permit.

When the occupants of the theater were asked, the three with permits were required by law to answer.

Stevekozak
08-01-2012, 17:24
Your welcome RussP.

After thinking about if this situation had happened to me here in Indiana and if the sequence of events is accurate, I don't think I would have stood up.

It appears that carrying in a theater is legal in Tennessee. If the sign was that hard to find and the Officer did not state at the beginning that he was enforcing the "No Guns" policy of the theater.

Did he actually have legal authority to ask who was licensed or carrying a gun?
You will get the standard answer here that LEO can ask anything they want (so can anyone else). The real question is did the carriers have any legal obligation to disclose. I don't know in that particular state.

H&K 4 LIFE
08-01-2012, 17:55
As I don't know what the laws are in TN, would there be any legal obligation for the two individuals who were carrying concealed to stand up and make themselves known?

Is the officers inquiry as to who has a permit and a concealed handgun a simple request, or a legally binding order? :dunno:

As for the guy who openly carried, he was foolish.

While I support open carry where legal, the only reason to carry at all is for the sole purpose of personal protection.

To open carry into a movie theater at this particular time, and on top of that, to see this particular movie, has attention seeking behavior written all over it. If you are just carrying to get attention or make some sort of political/"we will not be afraid" statement then you are carrying for the wrong reasons.

Wasn't there, but my inclination would have been not to come back.

+1.

RussP
08-01-2012, 18:12
You will get the standard answer here that LEO can ask anything they want (so can anyone else). The real question is did the carriers have any legal obligation to disclose. I don't know in that particular state.See Post #21.

As I don't know what the laws are in TN, would there be any legal obligation for the two individuals who were carrying concealed to stand up and make themselves known?See #21.

Is the officers inquiry as to who has a permit and a concealed handgun a simple request, or a legally binding order? :dunno:See :supergrin: Post 21.

RussP
08-01-2012, 18:34
Another question needs answering. Was the sign the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of firearms, or was it a sign with appropriate words. Tennessee law is specific as to the language needed for a prohibiting sign. Was the language there.

We know that the police said the sign was too small to be easily noticed. The law says it "shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted."

Anyone in or near Cookeville to go look?

H&K 4 LIFE
08-01-2012, 18:39
...See Post 21.

Thanks. I did not see that post, it explains a lot.

jph02
08-01-2012, 19:54
Signs have the force of law in Tennessee.

Management at the theater reported a violation of that law.

Police came to investigate.

Part of the investigation is determining the identity of the violator.

Tennessee law says when a permit holder is asked they must present their permit.

When the occupants of the theater were asked, the three with permits were required by law to answer.
This seems a bit of a stretch for a few reasons.

While signs have the force of law (http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/tennessee.pdf) in TN, the sign was at least not properly posted, as noted by the police. It's not clear, but the article implies the sign may not meet statutory requirements as to language or design, as well.

Since the sign did not meet legal requirements, the theater's patrons had not been properly notified of the no guns policy. As a result, carrying on the property is not a violation until the patrons were notified.

Even if the posting met statutory requirements, I don't think the police are justified in asking who's a CPL holder. That's like asking criminals to self identify. I also think CPL holders don't have a duty to provide ID and their license unless the officer is asking them individually and not as part of a fishing expedition.

bustedknee
08-01-2012, 19:57
It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys.



It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys!

RussP
08-01-2012, 21:08
This seems a bit of a stretch for a few reasons.

While signs have the force of law (http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/tennessee.pdf) in TN, the sign was at least not properly posted, as noted by the police. It's not clear, but the article implies the sign may not meet statutory requirements as to language or design, as well.

Since the sign did not meet legal requirements, the theater's patrons had not been properly notified of the no guns policy. As a result, carrying on the property is not a violation until the patrons were notified.

Even if the posting met statutory requirements, I don't think the police are justified in asking who's a CPL holder. That's like asking criminals to self identify. I also think CPL holders don't have a duty to provide ID and their license unless the officer is asking them individually and not as part of a fishing expedition.From the article:...but the sign was not large enough to have been noticed easily, he said.

的 advised them they might want to make the sign more visible, he said.How do you infer "the sign may not meet statutory requirements as to language or design, as well," from comments about size only?

As to whether you would not inform when asked under the same conditions, that is your decision to make as will be any consequences that you may suffer from your decision.

The three guys in Cookeville made their decisions.

RussP
08-01-2012, 21:13
It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys!So you are saying you support the two guys carrying concealed past the sign prohibiting firearms? You support them violating Tennessee law?

ckrockets
08-01-2012, 21:52
It seems OC screwed it up for the CC guys.

http://sdunnpastor.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/whatever.jpg

tomcon
08-01-2012, 22:22
Signs have the force of law in Tennessee.

Improperly posted "If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property." One small out of the way sign does not seem to qualify, no one was charged. Normal trespass laws should still apply.

Edit. It would be wrong to ignore the sign if you knew it was there before purchasing your tickets.


Management at the theater reported a violation of that law.

Yes I agree, they thought it was a violation.


Police came to investigate.

"The employee gave us a description of the man who was carrying a holstered pistol."



Tennessee law says when a permit holder is asked they must present their permit.

He asked who had a permit in the audience in general, not a specific person. I have always assumed this meant the person to whom the Officer directly asked.

Wouldn't this mean that any time an Officer asks for a permit that anyone within hearing range of the Officer must present their permit?


Just trying to broaden my thinking and avoid unknowingly breaking any laws.

jph02
08-02-2012, 05:56
From the article:
...but the sign was not large enough to have been noticed easily, he said.

的 advised them they might want to make the sign more visible, he said.
How do you infer "the sign may not meet statutory requirements as to language or design, as well," from comments about size only?

From this:
Improperly posted "If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property."

billkill
08-02-2012, 08:44
Heck of a gray area here IMO. You are required to present your permit upon LEO request, HOWEVER you are not required to inform you are carrying. :dunno:

Mayhem like Me
08-02-2012, 10:10
How about not doing stupid ****..

I am sorry but open carrying into a theater to watch Batman after what happened..

IS STUPID ****...


If your primary means of protection is your openly carried firearm you have lost and should probably not go out of your house.

Your primary means of protection should be your mind or mindset, and many fail miserably at this test.


I have no Issues with open carry when appropriate, I would deem this as attention whore carry..hey everyone look at me I am you protector.

Jon_R
08-02-2012, 10:21
So if you are a bad guy that wants to shoot people in a theater come to this town and then call the police. They will come make sure all the legal carriers are disarmed then leave and then implement your plan on the unarmed customers... :whistling:

This assumes a bad guy would in fact lie to the police so best it is 50/50 I guess. :dunno:

wprebeck
08-02-2012, 10:43
So if you are a bad guy that wants to shoot people in a theater come to this town and then call the police. They will come make sure all the legal carriers are disarmed then leave and then implement your plan on the unarmed customers... :whistling:

This assumes a bad guy would in fact lie to the police so best it is 50/50 I guess. :dunno:

The mindset that a gun is a magical talisman never ceases to amaze me.


As far as what criminals do, and their motivations for doing so - you haven't a clue, so stop acting as if you have the faintest idea.

Lastly, and going back to my first comment - a gun isn't a magic talisman. What's more, I've been to many a public range and have seen what the average shooter is capable of. I no more want the average gun carrier engaging in a gunfight inside of a crowded theater than I'd be happy seeing the average LEO do the same. I'm a fair shot, but "shooting under pressure" means a time limit....unless and until I have to do it for real. Most folks who carry don't compete in high stress pistol matches, nor do they have combat training or experience. I'd prefer they not be the John Wayne you so obviously wish you COULD be, and not engage a target in a dark and crowded theater...unless its at contact range, where you literally can't moss because the muzzle is resting on some part of the BG's body.

So, stop with the whole "A ccw permit holder could've stopped this" fantasy you have, and start researching better tactics. Hell, go ask Ayoob what the proper tactics are for the theater shooting. I'm betting he's not gonna advise you just start shooting from across the room - which is what you seem to advocate.

Jon_R
08-02-2012, 12:32
I always thought the proper tactics answer is always it depends. Unless we have established the exact tactics for theater's given any variables are X.

I can try and flee with or without a gun. I can shoot back only if I have a gun.

It is not a talisman it is an option that you can use or not use. That is if you have it.

If you prefer I do or do not take a shot does not really matter it would not be a committee decision. If I did or didn't would depend on many factors and variables.

If you are talking about Aurora yes it is possible a permit holder could have stopped it. Likely maybe not but possible yes. It could not have gone any worse for those killed. The only thing that stopped the gunfire is the bad guy decided to stop shooting people. I hope that is not the tactics we want to rely on.

The mindset that a gun is a magical talisman never ceases to amaze me.


As far as what criminals do, and their motivations for doing so - you haven't a clue, so stop acting as if you have the faintest idea.

Lastly, and going back to my first comment - a gun isn't a magic talisman. What's more, I've been to many a public range and have seen what the average shooter is capable of. I no more want the average gun carrier engaging in a gunfight inside of a crowded theater than I'd be happy seeing the average LEO do the same. I'm a fair shot, but "shooting under pressure" means a time limit....unless and until I have to do it for real. Most folks who carry don't compete in high stress pistol matches, nor do they have combat training or experience. I'd prefer they not be the John Wayne you so obviously wish you COULD be, and not engage a target in a dark and crowded theater...unless its at contact range, where you literally can't moss because the muzzle is resting on some part of the BG's body.

So, stop with the whole "A ccw permit holder could've stopped this" fantasy you have, and start researching better tactics. Hell, go ask Ayoob what the proper tactics are for the theater shooting. I'm betting he's not gonna advise you just start shooting from across the room - which is what you seem to advocate.

zbusdriver
08-02-2012, 13:20
So if you are a bad guy that wants to shoot people in a theater come to this town and then call the police. They will come make sure all the legal carriers are disarmed then leave and then implement your plan on the unarmed customers... :whistling:

This assumes a bad guy would in fact lie to the police so best it is 50/50 I guess. :dunno:Good post, but wprebeck says:


The mindset that a gun is a magical talisman never ceases to amaze me.He did not say or imply that, but you do have a wild imagination. :upeyes:


As far as what criminals do, and their motivations for doing so - you haven't a clue, so stop acting as if you have the faintest idea.You seem to not have a clue...where are you coming from? He said nothing of the sort...but since you seem to "think" you know everything, please tell us...:upeyes:

Lastly, and going back to my first comment - a gun isn't a magic talisman. What's more, I've been to many a public range and have seen what the average shooter is capable of. I no more want the average gun carrier engaging in a gunfight inside of a crowded theater than I'd be happy seeing the average LEO do the same. I'm a fair shot, but "shooting under pressure" means a time limit....unless and until I have to do it for real. Most folks who carry don't compete in high stress pistol matches, nor do they have combat training or experience. I'd prefer they not be the John Wayne you so obviously wish you COULD be, and not engage a target in a dark and crowded theater...unless its at contact range, where you literally can't moss because the muzzle is resting on some part of the BG's body.So you are an anti and everyone should be disarmed because no one has a chance, BUT YOU...ridiculous! :upeyes:

So, stop with the whole "A ccw permit holder could've stopped this" fantasy you have, and start researching better tactics. Hell, go ask Ayoob what the proper tactics are for the theater shooting. I'm betting he's not gonna advise you just start shooting from across the room - which is what you seem to advocate.Why don't you stop! You're off your know-it-all rocker! Take a pill - keyboard expert...:upeyes:

RussP
08-02-2012, 15:12
Folks, please, let's get back to talking about the incident, not each others' personalities and personal faults.

Thanks...

tomcon
08-02-2012, 15:48
I am not that worried about a shooting in the theater, the real problem is the parking lot.

As far as the OC guy goes for all we know he could have been going to this theater for years without problems while open carrying. May be this time the employee was actively looking for patrons carrying guns.

RussP
08-02-2012, 16:03
Signs have the force of law in Tennessee.Improperly posted "If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property." One small out of the way sign does not seem to qualify, no one was charged. Normal trespass laws should still apply.

Edit. It would be wrong to ignore the sign if you knew it was there before purchasing your tickets.Your last point, this was discussed in depth several years ago when a former GT member, a Tennessee resident, kwikrnu, Leonard S. Embody, started a campaign in the Nashville Metro area to show property owners that their signs did not "comply" with legal requirements. He said if the signs were not readable to him, large enough, or if the language was not exactly as presented in the law, then he professed he could not understand them. That's right. He said he could not understand the intent of the sign placed the owner.

Leonard said he would ignore them because he did not understand their intent. Okay, as was pointed out to him then, discussing it on GT definitely showed he very clearly understood, he was simply ignoring the owners' intent.

That being said, carriers in Texas have posted that they measure the height if the letters on 30.06 signs. If they are less than 1" tall, the sign does not conform to the specifications for signage prohibiting firearms. Therefore, some believe they can carry past the signs. Me, I've personally seen the signs with smaller lettering. I clearly understand the sign does not conform, but I just as clearly understand the intent of the owner.

Yes, in my opinion, if the persons carrying in Cookeville were aware of the sign, and the sign conformed, other than size, clearly the intent of the theater owner was to prohibit firearms and they were wrong carrying pass the sign.

Again, I do not agree with your inference that the sign was "out of the way" based on the information in the article.Management at the theater reported a violation of that law.Yes I agree, they thought it was a violation.It was a violation mitigated by the size of the sign.Police came to investigate. "The employee gave us a description of the man who was carrying a holstered pistol."Okay...Tennessee law says when a permit holder is asked they must present their permit.He asked who had a permit in the audience in general, not a specific person. I have always assumed this meant the person to whom the Officer directly asked.

Wouldn't this mean that any time an Officer asks for a permit that anyone within hearing range of the Officer must present their permit?


Just trying to broaden my thinking and avoid unknowingly breaking any laws.Lets deal with this specific situation.


Police are called to a multi-room theater complex.


Management directs them to one room.


Management tells them that a person in the one room is armed.


The occupants of the room are seated.


When the lights are turned up, they address the entire group as a unit.


They ask one question directed at each and every individual member of the group.


Three individuals respond to the question directed at them.


Police ask the members of the group a second question.


Three men again respond to the question applicable to them.
So, while each and every person in the theater room was not individually confronted and asked individually if they possessed a LTCH, the one question addressed to all was directed to each individual.

The police asked the appropriate question, whether anyone in the room possessed a license to carry. As required by law, the three gentlemen answered.

tomcon
08-02-2012, 22:19
Your last point, this was discussed in depth several years ago when a former GT member, a Tennessee resident, kwikrnu, Leonard S. Embody, started a campaign in the Nashville Metro area to show property owners that their signs did not "comply" with legal requirements. He said if the signs were not readable to him, large enough, or if the language was not exactly as presented in the law, then he professed he could not understand them. That's right. He said he could not understand the intent of the sign placed the owner.

Clearly not in violation of T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359.

Wouldn't that be admitting you were trespassing? How on earth do you point out that the signage does not comply while maintaining you did not understand the intent of the sign?



Yes, in my opinion, if the persons carrying in Cookeville were aware of the sign, and the sign conformed, other than size, clearly the intent of the theater owner was to prohibit firearms and they were wrong carrying pass the sign.

I agree. To clarify an earlier post, if this happened here in Indiana I would not have stood up for the questions but there would have been four people walking out.


Again, I do not agree with your inference that the sign was "out of the way" based on the information in the article.It was a violation mitigated by the size of the sign.Okay...Lets deal with this specific situation.


T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359 says "in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property."

"He said the theater employee showed him the sign posted in the lobby saying that weapons are prohibited, but the sign was not large enough to have been noticed easily, he said."

Clearly not at the entrance. Not in violation of T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359, which was written to protect both the permit holders and property owners.

It would be a violation under trespass law if/when you become aware of the sign/policy. A charge for armed trespass could have a harsher penalty than T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359.



So, while each and every person in the theater room were not individually confronted and asked individually if they possessed a LTCH, the one question addressed to all was directed to each individual.

So the room was treated the same way as a van full of passengers.
That makes sense.

Stevekozak
08-03-2012, 05:15
See Post #21.

See #21.

See :supergrin: Post 21.
Yep, your computer was faster than my computer, and I was too lazy to edit my post. :) :wavey:

RussP
08-03-2012, 09:51
Wouldn't that be admitting you were trespassing? How on earth do you point out that the signage does not comply while maintaining you did not understand the intent of the sign?That was the point we stressed with Mr. Embody.T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359 says "in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property."

"He said the theater employee showed him the sign posted in the lobby saying that weapons are prohibited, but the sign was not large enough to have been noticed easily, he said."

Clearly not at the entrance.How do you know it was clearly not at an entrance?

Where in the lobby was the sign?

Does the law read "on the entrance door?" No, it says, "...in prominent locations, including all entrances..."

Now, most would expect the sign to be on the door or an surface next to the entrance, that's what we see most of the time. But, the law does not define "entrance" as to a physical area. Is it the threshold of the door? Is it an area 3' deep extending 2' on either side of the door. Could that then mean a person would be in the lobby area once they crossed the threshold, yet still be within the entrance area?

AMSting
08-03-2012, 10:50
The LEO made a good call on this one. In TN, the signs can either be "substantially similar" language to the statute, or the international gunbuster sign. Both have equal weight. From what I understand from another forum, this was a gunbuster at the bottom of the entrace door.

Also, carrying past a properly posted sign is a misdemenor. You can be charged for that alone. Trespassing would only be added if you did not leave when asked.

So, the LEO, by stating the signs were not properly posted, avoided charging the three people just for carrying past the sign. Management (through the LEO) asked them to leave their guns in the cars, so by complying, they avoided the trespassing charge.

Argue all you want about OC, CC, etc., but the LEO made sure it became a non-issue to those involved.

Deep Blue
08-03-2012, 12:06
I live in Cookeville. I've been to that theater plenty of times. Until this story broke, I didn't know it was a posted no carry area. I've never seen a sign, so it really must not have been obvious (plenty of signs saying you can't bring outside food or drink in however).

SgtScott31
08-03-2012, 12:40
I swear it doesn't matter how nice the police were, some here will always make some sort of argument. I'm sure the LEOs had enough information to identify the three individuals in good lighting, but it was a dark theater and I don't blame them. Although the guys had no ill intentions, it's still a safety issue to the officer to deal with three armed individuals in a location where they could not be seen. It sounds to me that the officers handled it as well as they could have without causing embarrassment or being rude to the guys that were legally carrying. As I have said before, a Handgun Carry Permit (HCP) is simply a defense to unlawful carry. Officers who know someone is carrying, whether by observation or being told by someone else, can stop the holder and verify that he/she is carrying legally in TN.

In this case once it became known that people were in the theater armed, which was against the theater's policy, they acted appropriately (in my opinion). I'm not sure why a few here are asking why the LEOs dealt with it rather than theater management. Last I checked theater management doesn't carry or deal with people who carry. More importantly, theater management isn't there to deal with criminal acts. Carrying in the theater was a criminal act as far as TN law is concerned because the holders carried where it was prohibited to do so. One could argue that the sign wasn't posted clearly or didn't meet statutory standards, but I haven't seen an actual picture so I'll hold off on that argument. Just like Russ mentioning Leonard Embody, if you go around pushing the envelope, eventually it's going to push back. Whether the sign was up to standards or not is irrelevant in my opinion. If the place doesn't want guns there and there's a sign saying NO GUNS, why even start something? To me that's just burning more bridges between gun carriers and the rest of society. You're feeding gun-ban laws faster than anyone else as far as I'm concerned.

tomcon
08-03-2012, 14:20
How do you know it was clearly not at an entrance?

You are correct, I should have used at the entrance instead on the door.

Where in the lobby was the sign?

Does the law read "on the entrance door?" No, it says, "...in prominent locations, including all entrances..."

The rest of the quote, ....primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited."

Note that it says 菟ortion of the property or building, which implies that it must be visible before entering. After that you have committed a criminal offense.

A lobby is an entranceway or foyer in a building.:faint:

Now, most would expect the sign to be on the door or an surface next to the entrance, that's what we see most of the time. But, the law does not define "entrance" as to a physical area. Is it the threshold of the door? Is it an area 3' deep extending 2' on either side of the door. Could that then mean a person would be in the lobby area once they crossed the threshold, yet still be within the entrance area?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enter

Enter:To form a constituent part; to become a part or partaker; to penetrate; share or mix with, as tin enters into the composition of pewter. To go or come into a place or condition;

In Criminal Law, entry is the unlawful making of one's way into a dwelling or other house for the purpose of committing a crime therein. In cases of Burglary, the least entry with the whole or any part of the body, hand, or foot, or with any instrument or weapon,

I am not going there.


In the end I am more comfortable with the assumption that the theater was not properly posted than the possibility that the Officer chose not to enforce criminal law.

Edit to add smilie.

Spiffums
08-03-2012, 16:13
Signs have the force of law in Tennessee.

Management at the theater reported a violation of that law.

Police came to investigate.

Part of the investigation is determining the identity of the violator.

Tennessee law says when a permit holder is asked they must present their permit.

When the occupants of the theater were asked, the three with permits were required by law to answer.


What is your take on this when addressed in a crowd as opposed to one on one.

Jon_R
08-03-2012, 16:26
What is your take on this when addressed in a crowd as opposed to one on one.

Post #42 I think he covered that.

tomcon
08-03-2012, 17:45
What is your take on this when addressed in a crowd as opposed to one on one.

never mind

alank2
08-03-2012, 18:04
Hi,

Open carrying in a theater less than two weeks after the Aurora shooting?

I understand the idea here, but what irks me about it is that what is someone's right today is all of a sudden not acceptable because of the actions of a madman and all the hysteria that follows.

One thing I'd really like to see happen is polite, well dressed and not threatening looking open carriers slowly change the perception of a "man with a gun" to a "citizen exercising his right to protect him or herself".

Thanks,

Alan

jph02
08-03-2012, 18:38
I live in Cookeville. I've been to that theater plenty of times. Until this story broke, I didn't know it was a posted no carry area. I've never seen a sign, so it really must not have been obvious (plenty of signs saying you can't bring outside food or drink in however).
Thank you! The sign can only have the force of law if it meets legal requirements for being visible. If reasonable people hadn't seen it, it's not properly displayed imho.

Misty02
08-03-2012, 20:15
I live in Cookeville. I've been to that theater plenty of times. Until this story broke, I didn't know it was a posted no carry area. I've never seen a sign, so it really must not have been obvious (plenty of signs saying you can't bring outside food or drink in however).

Your comment speaks volumes as to the visibility of the sign.

.

Christopherloaf
08-04-2012, 16:50
I find this an interesting conversation and with regards to TN, since the laws aren't clear to me and I haven't been to their DPS website and read them I can't comment on the legality of the sign. However, it seems as though by most accounts and "hints" the sign was not legally posted judging by the police comments and by the fact that one member frequents that theater and didn't even see the sign. As for Texas, I took the CHL class Thursday the second and wrote down what the instructor stated was law regarding signage and still found there to be room for "interpretation." Allow me to share some fresh insight if you will: Here, if it's not a 30.06 or 51% sign it has no LEGAL baring to you being removed unless you're caught carrying concealed. At which point if you're asked to leave and don't comply you can be had for trespassing. Also in lieu of the 30.06 sign, it has to be CLEARLY visible, posted at entrances, (but doesn't say on doors or windows) contrasting colors, in Spanish and English and letters must be at least 1 inch in height. Now, good luck to you if you get a wally world that has that sign posted near the toy isle (hypothetically) and you have a police or security guard ask you to leave and you refuse. Same goes for the 51% sign...it has to meet the requirements of having the 51% in red and be clearly visible but again, good luck if you see the sign over the bar, get made and refuse to leave. In any instance where you're made and asked to leave, you're not going a good job of concealing anyway. I think the idea here is that whether or not it was done "legally," (a cop asks you to leave a joint or put up your firearm...don't be stupid enough to say no) it was done at least in a civil manner. At that point, now you know the place doesn't want firearms, make your decision then. Otherwise refuse to leave when asked and see what happens.

MonsterB
08-07-2012, 16:03
So they succeded in removing the guns from the legitimate ccw holders. Thats great. And any of the illegitimate guys, who no doubt didnt say or do anything, got to keep thier guns. Sounds very American.

broncobuddha1
08-07-2012, 21:12
I live in Knoxville and my understanding is that the sign has to be a gun buster or mention the specific statute posted earlier in this thread. The sign must be visible and posted at ALL entrances that the public wold normally use. So, having one sign at the Penny's entrance to the mall but nowhere else isnt compliant.

Russ, etc... I have a big issue with the supposed intents of signs. After the last revision of the guns in bars law here I've been in many restaurants that still have the old signs citing violations and fines that dont even exist anymore. Someone could argue the establishment's intent is that they dont want guns there. Well then they should post lawful signs.

I carry in these places because they arent valid. As far as I'm concerned the intent of the establishment is that they are pro gun and merely leave the old signs up to make the bedwetters warm and fuzzy because they dont know any better. Say its likely or not who's to say thats not what it meant? This why the law is specific about proper signage. If it were discovered that I was carrying and asked to leave, sign or not I wold comply.

I ccd to Batman the Sunday after the shooting. Never seen signs at the theaters here. I got in early but once the crowds came in I heard they were searching people coming in. No signs yet they were searching people. Crazy. I haven't been to the movies since but I fully expect to see postings now.

series1811
08-07-2012, 21:20
Hi,



I understand the idea here, but what irks me about it is that what is someone's right today is all of a sudden not acceptable because of the actions of a madman and all the hysteria that follows.

One thing I'd really like to see happen is polite, well dressed and not threatening looking open carriers slowly change the perception of a "man with a gun" to a "citizen exercising his right to protect him or herself".

Thanks,

Alan

Unfortunately, every OCer doesn't has the same agenda.

RussP
08-08-2012, 06:39
So they succeded in removing the guns from the legitimate ccw holders. Thats great. And any of the illegitimate guys, who no doubt didnt say or do anything, got to keep thier guns. Sounds very American.And that is the issue. Property owners, business owners, they have to be shown that is the end result of their ban on firearms.

How we do that is worthy of a new thread...

A6Gator
08-08-2012, 06:57
Open carrying in a theater less than two weeks after the Aurora shooting?

He knew what he was doing, and what he wanted, and he got it.

Wanted attention. Received same.

On a positive note, 3 for 3 on HCP guys. Who says people get permits then never carry...:supergrin:

wjv
08-08-2012, 10:18
Since the sign did not meet legal requirements, the theater's patrons had not been properly notified of the no guns policy. As a result, carrying on the property is not a violation until the patrons were notified.



Which is exactly what the police did. They notified the people and informed them that they would have to put their guns in their cars.

They didn't bring in SWAT. They didn't arrest the CCW guys. They simple INFORMED the guys about the theater's prohibition and asked them to comply.

Hopefully on the way out they also informed the theater that the signs needed to be changed.

wjv
08-08-2012, 10:23
Never seen signs at the theaters here. I got in early but once the crowds came in I heard they were searching people coming in.

I would never allow myself to be searched so that I could enter a private business, unless it was a high security facilities like a diamond exchange or similar.

I would inform the owner that because they were searching people, they had lost my business and my $$ permanently, and that I was taking my $$ to their competition.

Deep Blue
08-09-2012, 23:44
Per RussP's request, I conducted a little site recon of the Highland Cinema today. They have a sheet of paper taped up to on each door now, with the Carmike logo on it, saying basically "All bags and packs entering the theater are subject to search". The last line is "Guns and weapons are not allowed".

I still didn't see the original signs that have apparently been there the whole time, the one the news article referred to. I have no idea what they're going to do when the taped up warnings at each entrance start to get worn, they still don't have any form of permanent sticker type warning posted anywhere.

SgtScott31
08-10-2012, 00:20
I live in Knoxville and my understanding is that the sign has to be a gun buster or mention the specific statute posted earlier in this thread. The sign must be visible and posted at ALL entrances that the public wold normally use. So, having one sign at the Penny's entrance to the mall but nowhere else isnt compliant.

Russ, etc... I have a big issue with the supposed intents of signs. After the last revision of the guns in bars law here I've been in many restaurants that still have the old signs citing violations and fines that dont even exist anymore. Someone could argue the establishment's intent is that they dont want guns there. Well then they should post lawful signs.

I carry in these places because they arent valid. As far as I'm concerned the intent of the establishment is that they are pro gun and merely leave the old signs up to make the bedwetters warm and fuzzy because they dont know any better. Say its likely or not who's to say thats not what it meant? This why the law is specific about proper signage. If it were discovered that I was carrying and asked to leave, sign or not I wold comply.

I ccd to Batman the Sunday after the shooting. Never seen signs at the theaters here. I got in early but once the crowds came in I heard they were searching people coming in. No signs yet they were searching people. Crazy. I haven't been to the movies since but I fully expect to see postings now.

So you're assuming the theater's intent (or any other business) is to allow permit holders in their building with weapons because they have old signs that YOU BELIEVE are not compliant. I hate to break it to you, but the decision as to the legality of the signs complying with TCA 39-17-1359 is solely up the judge. If you want to risk a criminal charge and/or losing your permit on an assumption that the signs are non-compliant, that's on you. Even if it's an older sign, it would still say "pursuant to 39-17-1359..." Although newer legislation has passed regarding HCP holders and where they can carry, the specific TCA regarding prohibition of weapons on private property didn't. It's still 1359. If you want to get into an argument with a business owner about his "old" sign, that's your business. I am going to take an educated guess and say the next sentence out of the business owner's mouth is for you to leave. If owners wanted weapons in their buildings, they would take two seconds and remove the sign. At least that's how I see it.

RussP
08-10-2012, 04:08
Per RussP's request, I conducted a little site recon of the Highland Cinema today. They have a sheet of paper taped up to on each door now, with the Carmike logo on it, saying basically "All bags and packs entering the theater are subject to search". The last line is "Guns and weapons are not allowed".

I still didn't see the original signs that have apparently been there the whole time, the one the news article referred to. I have no idea what they're going to do when the taped up warnings at each entrance start to get worn, they still don't have any form of permanent sticker type warning posted anywhere.Thank you very much.

Well, that certainly doesn't conform to the requirements set forth in the law.

HOWEVER, like SgtScott31 said, getting into it with management at any theater might not be the best use of ones energy these days.

This sign issue is tricky...

jph02
08-10-2012, 18:09
So you're assuming the theater's intent (or any other business) is to allow permit holders in their building with weapons because they have old signs that YOU BELIEVE are not compliant...

Well, that certainly doesn't conform to the requirements set forth in the law....

This sign issue is tricky...
Agreed. If the premises is posted in a manner that a reasonable person should see the sign and understand it, then it's communicating management's intent. Whether it meets legal requirements is a technicality that we, as law-abiding 2Aers probably shouldn't be trying to split hairs over. If you want to stay armed, patronize another business. If you choose to ignore the sign, expect negative consequences regardless of whether you're right or not.

broncobuddha1
08-10-2012, 19:14
SgtScott, my understanding was that the new law as it applies to places that serve acolhol requires specific signage that are comprised of either a gun buster icon or specifically mention the new law.

I was merely making a point about intent. Its up to interpretation. The law isn't.

I obey all legal signs. And I carry concealed anyways and have never had a problem. If I were asked to eave, I would do so immediately.

SgtScott31
08-10-2012, 20:31
Here is the TCA regarding a posting notice. If you check the areas that I have underlined and bolded, you will see that the statute indicates a business owner can post the prohibition notice one of two ways. Either by the language described under b(3) (or something similar - i.e. it doesn't have to be verbatim) or the "gun buster" sign (weapon with slash through it).


39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings -- Posting notice.

(a) (1) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of ァ 39-17-1351.

(b) (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (b)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

(3) (A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. ァ 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(B) As used in this section, "language substantially similar to" means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and

(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

(C) A building, property or a portion of a building or property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (b)(3).

(c) (1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by ァ 39-17-1311.



Any private business, whether serving alcohol or not, can use a sign that simply says something to the effect that "pursuant to TN law, the owner has banned weapons from this property and violation is punishable as a criminal act." It doesn't have to cite 1359 verbatim or show a gun-buster sign as many seem to imply. The owner can do one or both. If the sign is located at the entrances and fairly easy to see, then the judge isn't going to go easy on a HCP holder in my opinion.

broncobuddha1
08-11-2012, 08:45
Thanks for posting that. I guess what I was getting at was section c1 which states: "it is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or property that is PROPERLY posted in accordance with this section."

The restaurants where I'm seeing these really old postings aren't gunbusters, just the wording about posessing a firearm where alcohol is served, which doesnt apply anymore. More importantly, 100% of these signs that I've seen have only been posted in the actual bar area well inside the building, not posted at the entrance as required by law.

I might still get asked to leave if I were discovered somehow but I dont think that I would be charged with that $500 misdemeanor.

SgtScott31
08-23-2012, 00:35
I might still get asked to leave if I were discovered somehow but I dont think that I would be charged with that $500 misdemeanor.


That's true, but are you willing to take the chance? It will likely be the responding LEO's decision whether the sign was properly posted involving an arrest. Then it will be the ADA and ultimately the judge's decision as to whether the LEO was correct.

I know which sign you are referring to that they stick behind the bar. I would NOT arrest if that's the only thing posted. I would expect that most LEOs would not either.

Schlitz
08-23-2012, 09:29
I just find it mind boggling that you guys blame the man who was open carrying for this whole thing.

1. Who wants to patronize an establishment that wants you disarmed on their property in the first place? Why would I give the fruits of my labor to such a business?

2. The open carrier isn't causing the scene, the soccer moms, neocons, and liberals foaming at the mouth because the sight of a firearm are causing the scene. The ticket salesman who sold him a ticket without informing him of their policy caused the scene. Whoever called the cops instead of asking him to leave caused the scene.

3. I wish more people WOULD open carry, ESPECIALLY TO THE BATMAN MOVIE *GASP WHY WHY GASP* If everyone in the movie theater was visibly strapped up the likely hood of that theater being targeted for a mass shooting would be a lot lower - and if it did happen it wouldn't last as long.

INB4 - omg then everyone would be confused as to the shooter was and it could cause chaos > I'd rather have a little bit of confusion and chaos as opposed to some pyscho shooting in a barrel of fish

Can you imagine if James Holmes the 2nd was sitting in this theater planning out when he was going to exit to go get his guns and return to shoot? Can you imagine the feeling of relief he would have when the cops entered and forced the armed citizens to leave or drop their guns off in their car?

Can you image the gut wrenching feeling you'd have if you had just dropped your gun off in your car and 15 min. later into the movie a crazed madman started unloading into the crowd?:faint:

I'm not blaming the cops for this, they were right when they said it was the establishment's policy. Unfortunately the establishment handled this HORRIBLY from the beginning.

BigSpenda864
08-23-2012, 10:39
How about not doing stupid ****..

I am sorry but open carrying into a theater to watch Batman after what happened..

IS STUPID ****...


If your primary means of protection is your openly carried firearm you have lost and should probably not go out of your house.

Your primary means of protection should be your mind or mindset, and many fail miserably at this test.


I have no Issues with open carry when appropriate, I would deem this as attention whore carry..hey everyone look at me I am you protector.
Exactly!

Schlitz
08-23-2012, 14:03
How is open carrying in a batman movie after a mass shooting by a crazed man stupid?

If you find this stupid, you probably have hoplophobia.

Why WOULDN'T you open carry to a place known for mass shootings?

1. It can act as a deterrent. Perhaps someone who plans on shooting up a place will decide they don't want a gun fight if they even notice it. If they are hell bent on shooting the place up anyways then you're just going to be able to draw that much faster.

INB4 OMG YOU'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TARGETED - maybe? what are the odds that your movie gets shot up? okay, what are the odds the exact person in the theater saw your gun? okay, what are the odds that if targeted first he gets an amazing headshot and you don't have time to draw? This is a silly argument, and if you're really into concealed carry being so superior then you should appreciate an open carrier being the 'first target' so you have time to draw. Keep in mind, if no one is there open carrying, there still will be a "first target" and it could end up being you anyways.

2. As I mentioned you can get to your weapon faster in the event you need it. You obviously feel you may need it since you're carrying it, and there was a mass shooting in a similar scenario not too long ago. Don't tell me you can draw your .380 from your butt crack under a few layers a clothes faster than I can draw a Glock from a safariland ALS holster.

3. Just because someone carries differently than you doesn't make it stupid and it doesn't make them an attention whore.

Mayhem like Me
08-23-2012, 17:52
How is open carrying in a batman movie after a mass shooting by a crazed man stupid?

If you find this stupid, you probably have hoplophobia.

Why WOULDN'T you open carry to a place known for mass shootings?

1. It can act as a deterrent. Perhaps someone who plans on shooting up a place will decide they don't want a gun fight if they even notice it. If they are hell bent on shooting the place up anyways then you're just going to be able to draw that much faster.

INB4 OMG YOU'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TARGETED - maybe? what are the odds that your movie gets shot up? okay, what are the odds the exact person in the theater saw your gun? okay, what are the odds that if targeted first he gets an amazing headshot and you don't have time to draw? This is a silly argument, and if you're really into concealed carry being so superior then you should appreciate an open carrier being the 'first target' so you have time to draw. Keep in mind, if no one is there open carrying, there still will be a "first target" and it could end up being you anyways.

2. As I mentioned you can get to your weapon faster in the event you need it. You obviously feel you may need it since you're carrying it, and there was a mass shooting in a similar scenario not too long ago. Don't tell me you can draw your .380 from your butt crack under a few layers a clothes faster than I can draw a Glock from a safariland ALS holster.

3. Just because someone carries differently than you doesn't make it stupid and it doesn't make them an attention whore.

You are ignorant of many things.

And your ability to rationally discus this subject is seriously compromised by your feelings.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
08-23-2012, 21:30
Folks, knock off the personal attacks. They add no value to the discussion. :impatient:

RussP
08-23-2012, 21:33
You are ignorant of many things. Would you please elaborate on some of what Schlitz is not aware of for his benefit and that of others.

Thanks

Misty02
08-23-2012, 21:45
The post I was going to quote is now gone, it is not necessary for my comment so I’ll make it anyway unless RussP believes it is out line.

One of the definitions of “logic”: interrelation of sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.

While I’m not often concerned with how others “feel” about what I do or don’t do, I’m sufficiently self-centered to care how the reaction to their “feelings” may impact me. There might be times when the risk associated with their reaction is an acceptable risk to what I wish to achieve. There are other times where the reward associated with such risk is negligible, non-existent or totally not in my favor. Purposely assuming a risk absent a reward is not logical.

In this particular case the gentleman had a choice between CC and OC. Due to what recently occurred in another theater during that same exact movie it was not wise to exercise the less favorable (to him) choice. I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others. However, most reasonable people should have been able to predict what the reaction to an openly carried firearm in a movie theater in that particular movie would have been.

Conversely, in an OC state where a license is not required to OC, had the gentleman not possessed a license allowing him to CC (assuming you could only CC with a license) I would argue he had the right to carry in the only fashion he was legally able to carry.

My personal opinion is that because he did indeed have a choice, his selection was unwise and illogical. That period of consideration for the feelings of others is not indefinite; our own personal risk versus reward analysis should be reviewed to determine when it ends. The sole purpose should also never be to irritate or antagonize others.


ETA: I’m assuming the comment quoted from the officer is correct and that the sign was not easily noticeable by patrons thus they entered without knowledge they were breaking any laws.
.

SgtScott31
08-23-2012, 23:08
Post Removed from Open Forum

I think you're getting way too worked up over something you have absolutely no control over.

The theater doesn't allow weapons. Nothing is going to change that. Carrying anyway will likely land you criminal charges and/or seizure of your weapon. If you want to risk it, be my guest. Whether we agree with the policy of the theater or any private business owner is a mute point.

Mayhem like Me
08-24-2012, 04:33
Would you please elaborate on some of what Schlitz is not aware of for his benefit and that of others.

Thanks

Gladly, the majority of people do not want to see people they cannot identify through a uniform or other symbol of authority openly armed airing next to them in public.

I you just look at the numbers of people that OC it is very small.

OC has it's place , but it is not even remotely appropriate in this case, and if you believe it is you cannot learn anything.


Private property rights cannot be trumped by the second amendment, your bill of rights protects you in public from the government , not in private areas from property owners.


If you have not seen the cause and effect of what happens when OC gets too confrontational you will.

As we have already seen theaters having very strict policies enacted to thwart yahoos like this including hiring security and wanting patrons.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Schlitz
08-24-2012, 05:33
I think you're getting way too worked up over something you have absolutely no control over.

The theater doesn't allow weapons. Nothing is going to change that. Carrying anyway will likely land you criminal charges and/or seizure of your weapon. If you want to risk it, be my guest. Whether we agree with the policy of the theater or any private business owner is a mute point.
Define worked up? It's an internet forum? I assure you that if I happen to strike the caps lock key or shift my blood pressure has not changed... it's just a forum.

This debate isn't about the theaters policy and I have taken to no issue with that. We have established already that the patrons didn't know of the policy due to the poor placement of the sign and the lack of action taken by the employees.

Gladly, the majority of people do not want to see people they cannot identify through a uniform or other symbol of authority openly armed airing next to them in public.

I you just look at the numbers of people that OC it is very small.

OC has it's place , but it is not even remotely appropriate in this case, and if you believe it is you cannot learn anything.

So, because some people have a fear of open carry because they think only cops and robbers carry guns it means that open carry isn't remotely appropriate and if you can't see things YOUR way you cannot learn anything. And here we are at square one. Your argument is based off of emotions and fears. Because soccer moms and the uneducated fear guns it makes guns inappropriate.

Private property rights cannot be trumped by the second amendment, your bill of rights protects you in public from the government , not in private areas from property owners.
Sweet, another straw man. I agree with you. I never disagreed with this. The debate wasn't over if you should be allowed to trespass on private property. A couple people earlier said "Oh the OC guy ruined it for CC." Still waiting for RussP to give them an infraction for 'condoning illegal activity.' :rofl:

As we have already seen theaters having very strict policies enacted to thwart yahoos like this including hiring security and wanting patrons.

Apparently the policies are strict enough if they're selling tickets to people who are openly armed.

RussP
08-24-2012, 08:16
The post I was going to quote is now gone, it is not necessary for my comment so I値l make it anyway unless RussP believes it is out line.

One of the definitions of 斗ogic: interrelation of sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.That portion is fine. A sad consequence of members getting into pissing contests (Please pardon my language, ma'am), is that the entire post is affected. Eric does not allow deleting portions of posts. Break the rules, the whole post goes.While I知 not often concerned with how others 吐eel about what I do or don稚 do, I知 sufficiently self-centered to care how the reaction to their 吐eelings may impact me. There might be times when the risk associated with their reaction is an acceptable risk to what I wish to achieve. There are other times where the reward associated with such risk is negligible, non-existent or totally not in my favor. Purposely assuming a risk absent a reward is not logical.Extremely important point.

"There are other times where the reward associated with such risk is...totally not in my favor. Purposely assuming a risk absent a reward is not logical.In this particular case the gentleman had a choice between CC and OC. Due to what recently occurred in another theater during that same exact movie it was not wise to exercise the less favorable (to him) choice. I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others. However, most reasonable people should have been able to predict what the reaction to an openly carried firearm in a movie theater in that particular movie would have been.Yes.Conversely, in an OC state where a license is not required to OC, had the gentleman not possessed a license allowing him to CC (assuming you could only CC with a license) I would argue he had the right to carry in the only fashion he was legally able to carry.Exactly, one open carrying under that circumstance might should take mitigating actions to minimize adverse consequences. This point is, of course, predicated on the fact that carry is allowed by the property/business owner.My personal opinion is that because he did indeed have a choice, his selection was unwise and illogical. That period of consideration for the feelings of others is not indefinite; our own personal risk versus reward analysis should be reviewed to determine when it ends. The sole purpose should also never be to irritate or antagonize others.Yes...ETA: I知 assuming the comment quoted from the officer is correct and that the sign was not easily noticeable by patrons thus they entered without knowledge they were breaking any laws.
.The comment and the fact there were no charges made makes that a safe assumption. It would be better to hear from the gentleman that he had never seen the sign.

Mayhem like Me
08-24-2012, 09:33
Define worked up? It's an internet forum? I assure you that if I happen to strike the caps lock key or shift my blood pressure has not changed... it's just a forum.

This debate isn't about the theaters policy and I have taken to no issue with that. We have established already that the patrons didn't know of the policy due to the poor placement of the sign and the lack of action taken by the employees.



So, because some people have a fear of open carry because they think only cops and robbers carry guns it means that open carry isn't remotely appropriate and if you can't see things YOUR way you cannot learn anything. And here we are at square one. Your argument is based off of emotions and fears. Because soccer moms and the uneducated fear guns it makes guns inappropriate.


Sweet, another straw man. I agree with you. I never disagreed with this. The debate wasn't over if you should be allowed to trespass on private property. A couple people earlier said "Oh the OC guy ruined it for CC." Still waiting for RussP to give them an infraction for 'condoning illegal activity.' :rofl:



Apparently the policies are strict enough if they're selling tickets to people who are openly armed.



Again what substance do you have to offer that it was a " good choice" to open carry.



I have seen nothing from you .

It was not a good choice using any logic or critical thinking skills.

Your "soccer mom and hooplaphobe aside" it was a poor choice.

Again it is not MY WAY it is what a thinking adult would do, if you are too insecure , and need to wear your gun where people can see it go right ahead, MY OPINION is this was a bad choice.

It will not further good relationships with open carry and it makes them look like rigid yahoos.

Mayhem like Me
08-24-2012, 09:39
Apparently the policies are strict enough if they're selling tickets to people who are openly armed.

This gem shows how out of touch you are..
Do you really expect a unarmed theater ticket seller in his or her teens to confront and armed person?

are you that out of touch?

People call the cops becase their neighbors talk too loud and you think a kid making minimum wage is going to confront someone about their gun...:rofl::rofl:

RussP
08-24-2012, 10:31
Again it is not MY WAY it is what a thinking adult would do, if you are too insecure , and need to wear your gun where people can see it go right ahead, MY OPINION is this was a bad choice.In this case there was a choice.

What about those for whom OC is the only means of carry, those without a carry permit either by choice or because of age (too young for a concealed permit/license)?

And, again, being able to OC without a permit or license to carry varies from state to state.

Mayhem like Me
08-24-2012, 11:27
In this case there was a choice.

What about those for whom OC is the only means of carry, those without a carry permit either by choice or because of age (too young for a concealed permit/license)?

And, again, being able to OC without a permit or license to carry varies from state to state.

That was not the case here, that I commented on.


In the case where it is OC only I would think a prudent and thinking person would contact the venue and inquire what the rules were before assuming.


But that would require thought and planning not a selfish look at me attitude.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
08-24-2012, 11:40
In the case where it is OC only I would think a prudent and thinking person would contact the venue and inquire what the rules were before assuming.Yes.Exactly, one open carrying under that circumstance might should take mitigating actions to minimize adverse consequences.Obviously, I agree...

RussP
08-24-2012, 11:55
Do you really expect a unarmed theater ticket seller in his or her teens to confront and armed person?

People call the cops becase their neighbors talk too loud and you think a kid making minimum wage is going to confront someone about their gun...Did the ticket seller even see the firearm?

The objective of such an employee under these circumstances should be to keep everything normal until someone with both the authority and the ability to confront the individual can intervene.

Mayhem like Me
08-24-2012, 13:37
Did the ticket seller even see the firearm?

The objective of such an employee under these circumstances should be to keep everything normal until someone with both the authority and the ability to confront the individual can intervene.
I agree I'm showing him how his argument falls flat. Best case scenario the ticket taker sees the weapon calls police they most certainly would not confront the person.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Schlitz
08-24-2012, 14:24
You are ignorant of many things.

And your ability to rationally discus this subject is seriously compromised by your feelings.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

That portion is fine. A sad consequence of members getting into pissing contests (Please pardon my language, ma'am), is that the entire post is affected. Eric does not allow deleting portions of posts. Break the rules, the whole post goes.Extremely important point.

I literally quoted that post above and mine was deleted. If it was a violation of the rules both would have been deleted.

Again what substance do you have to offer that it was a " good choice" to open carry.


I have seen nothing from you .

Perhaps you should read the entire thread? I'm not going to quote my own posts...

Again it is not MY WAY it is what a thinking adult would do, if you are too insecure , and need to wear your gun where people can see it go right ahead,...
You know only adults are allowed to carry handguns right? (unless there is a state I am unaware of where minors can carry handguns out and about) "blah blah blah you're insecure if you open carry" < more emotional stuff. Obviously since adults are the ones open carrying then adults are also thinking of it as acceptable.


It will not further good relationships with open carry and it makes them look like rigid yahoos.
Tell me, how does one further good relationships with open carry by not open carrying?

I agree I'm showing him how his argument falls flat.
Your argument can't even stand on it's own to be able to fall flat at this point. Your only reasons for open carry to be a bad idea that night are based off of people's emotions and nothing else. Someone else's fear of weapons doesn't make my decision to carry one openly stupid. If they have a fear of weapons it's their problem.


This gem shows how out of touch you are..
Do you really expect a unarmed theater ticket seller in his or her teens to confront and armed person?



Confront the person? Why "confront" them? Why wouldn't they politely inform them of their policy and then call police if they enter anyways after that? If they want to keep their job then they need to be able to tell people what is acceptable and not acceptable on the premises. If the person enters after learning that their gun isn't welcome then they are tresspassing, that's when policy should be involved.

I think it is becoming clear who is "out of touch" here.

Mrs. VR
08-24-2012, 15:09
Just popping in to remind folks that people are entitled to have differing opinions, and all are expected to be polite and remain within the TOS. It's quite possible to disagree with someone and remain civil. I know, I have teenagers ;)

RussP
08-24-2012, 16:11
The post I was going to quote is now gone, it is not necessary for my comment so I値l make it anyway unless RussP believes it is out line.

One of the definitions of 斗ogic: interrelation of sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.

While I知 not often concerned with how others 吐eel about what I do or don稚 do, I知 sufficiently self-centered to care how the reaction to their 吐eelings may impact me. There might be times when the risk associated with their reaction is an acceptable risk to what I wish to achieve. There are other times where the reward associated with such risk is negligible, non-existent or totally not in my favor. Purposely assuming a risk absent a reward is not logical.

In this particular case the gentleman had a choice between CC and OC. Due to what recently occurred in another theater during that same exact movie it was not wise to exercise the less favorable (to him) choice. I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others. However, most reasonable people should have been able to predict what the reaction to an openly carried firearm in a movie theater in that particular movie would have been.

Conversely, in an OC state where a license is not required to OC, had the gentleman not possessed a license allowing him to CC (assuming you could only CC with a license) I would argue he had the right to carry in the only fashion he was legally able to carry.

My personal opinion is that because he did indeed have a choice, his selection was unwise and illogical. That period of consideration for the feelings of others is not indefinite; our own personal risk versus reward analysis should be reviewed to determine when it ends. The sole purpose should also never be to irritate or antagonize others.

ETA: I知 assuming the comment quoted from the officer is correct and that the sign was not easily noticeable by patrons thus they entered without knowledge they were breaking any laws.
.

I think it is becoming clear who is "out of touch" here.Did you read Misty02's post?

Schlitz
08-24-2012, 16:22
Did you read Misty02's post?

I did, the only part I can chime in on is:
I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others. However, most reasonable people should have been able to predict what the reaction to an openly carried firearm in a movie theater in that particular movie would have been.

Anyone can predict what could happen when they go out open carrying. It is not a secret that tons of people don't like the idea of citizens packing heat. I have open carried myself and every time I was fully prepared for the police to be called on me because I know plenty of people not only don't care for that method of carry, but they think NO ONE should do it unless they are a cop. With that said, I fall back to your words written above. I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others.

I think seeing a man open carrying in a theater of that specific movie and freaking out is unreasonable. I can understand with the media hype you could be....terrified! But that's not reasonable. I feel that a reasonable person would see that and say, "hmm, given the recent shooting in a movie theater it is probably a smart idea to start carrying a gun in places like this. I wish I had brought my gun tonight." Seeing armed people when you're unarmed can give you a vulnerable, naked feeling. This shouldn't be used to justify disarming everyone around you to make you feel better, (especially when they are supposed to have the right to bear arms in this country) if anything this should motivate you to go get a gun and carry it yourself! (not YOU, i'm sure anyone reading this is armed and carries themselves, but the movie goers)

EDIT:

In summation, I'm not crazy or unreasonable. I think the movie goers who become scared at the sight of open carry are letting their emotions stop their reasonable thinking. I would expect someone who is very emotional and doesn't think things through to get terrified at the sight of an open carried gun, but I'm not changing my mode of carry because they don't want to think things through.

As I said earlier, I don't think anyone's right to bear arms trumps the private property rights.

RussP
08-24-2012, 17:22
I have open carried myself...How often have you open carried? You say "have" as "in the past." Do you open carry now?I fall back to your words written above.Careful, not my words...

RussP
08-24-2012, 17:29
Did you read Misty02's post?I did, the only part I can chime in on is:
I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others. However, most reasonable people should have been able to predict what the reaction to an openly carried firearm in a movie theater in that particular movie would have been.Why can't you comment on the rest of her post?

Schlitz
08-24-2012, 17:44
How often have you open carried? You say "have" as "in the past." Do you open carry now?Careful, not my words...
I live in a state that has no right to bear arms. Open Carry is only allowed when fishing, hunting, camping, or target shooting (or going to or from). I DO visit family in states where open carry is lawful. I haven't open carried for a few months.

Why can't you comment on the rest of her post?
Because the rest of what she said is pretty straight forward. To respond to the entire thing would have me repeating myself too many times (and I think I've done that enough here). I enjoy Misty's opinions here. They are well thought out and tactfully posted. Though I don't agree with all her posts, they are more constructive than, "he open carried? He's dumb because I said so."

RussP
08-24-2012, 18:45
I live in a state that has no right to bear arms. Open Carry is only allowed when fishing, hunting, camping, or target shooting (or going to or from). I DO visit family in states where open carry is lawful. I haven't open carried for a few months.Sounds like you might be in Florida.

A simple yes or no answer, would you have opened carried into a theater showing the Batman movie 6-days after the Aurora shooting?

RussP
08-24-2012, 18:48
Because the rest of what she said is pretty straight forward. To respond to the entire thing would have me repeating myself too many times (and I think I've done that enough here). I enjoy Misty's opinions here. They are well thought out and tactfully posted. Though I don't agree with all her posts, they are more constructive than, "he open carried? He's dumb because I said so."So, do you agree with everything else in her post in this thread?

Schlitz
08-24-2012, 19:07
Sounds like you might be in Florida.

A simple yes or no answer, would you have opened carried into a theater showing the Batman movie 6-days after the Aurora shooting?
Florida it is! In a state where open carry is legal, and if I wasn't aware of any policy prohibiting it - yes.
So, do you agree with everything else in her post in this thread?

I don't feel like dissecting her entire post at the moment, but I agree with some things she says and I disagree with other things. My failure to comment on her every word doesn't mean I am in agree with the rest. Was there a specific part you were curious as to what my opinion was on it?

Mayhem like Me
08-24-2012, 19:37
I literally quoted that post above and mine was deleted. If it was a violation of the rules both would have been deleted.


Perhaps you should read the entire thread? I'm not going to quote my own posts...


You know only adults are allowed to carry handguns right? (unless there is a state I am unaware of where minors can carry handguns out and about) "blah blah blah you're insecure if you open carry" < more emotional stuff. Obviously since adults are the ones open carrying then adults are also thinking of it as acceptable.


Tell me, how does one further good relationships with open carry by not open carrying?


Your argument can't even stand on it's own to be able to fall flat at this point. Your only reasons for open carry to be a bad idea that night are based off of people's emotions and nothing else. Someone else's fear of weapons doesn't make my decision to carry one openly stupid. If they have a fear of weapons it's their problem.



Confront the person? Why "confront" them? Why wouldn't they politely inform them of their policy and then call police if they enter anyways after that? If they want to keep their job then they need to be able to tell people what is acceptable and not acceptable on the premises. If the person enters after learning that their gun isn't welcome then they are tresspassing, that's when policy should be involved.

I think it is becoming clear who is "out of touch" here.

Exceedingly , you believe that it was the best choice given his options , I do not.

My argument does stand on own I believe his choose was stupid and selfish.

Your belief that a theatre ticket seller would confront a armed patron shows how put of touch you are with current practice.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
08-24-2012, 19:45
Florida it is! In a state where open carry is legal, and if I wasn't aware of any policy prohibiting it - yes.Thank you.I don't feel like dissecting her entire post at the moment,...When you do, your thoughts on her post would be appreciated.

RussP
08-25-2012, 06:43
Anyone can predict what could happen when they go out open carrying.How about you, what are your predictions about when you go out open carrying?

Are your predictions influenced by any factors not within your control?

What do you expect will happen?

What do you do to mitigate, prevent any unpleasantries?

I have open carried myself and every time I was fully prepared for the police to be called on me...Have you ever had any unpleasant open carry experiences?It is not a secret that tons of people don't like the idea of citizens packing heat...people not only don't care for that method of carry, but they think NO ONE should do it unless they are a cop.That's true. With that said, I fall back to your words written above.[/FONT][COLOR=Blue] I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others. But, Misty went on to say...[FONT=Verdana]However, most reasonable people should have been able to predict what the reaction to an openly carried firearm in a movie theater in that particular movie would have been.Do you believe a reasonable prediction would include a negative reaction to ones firearm just a week after twelve people were killed?I think seeing a man open carrying in a theater of that specific movie and freaking out is unreasonable. I can understand with the media hype you could be....terrified! But that's not reasonable.Schlitz, have you ever feared that you were going to die, that death was imminent, it could, it would come within seconds?


I feel that a reasonable person would see that and say, "hmm, given the recent shooting in a movie theater it is probably a smart idea to start carrying a gun in places like this. I wish I had brought my gun tonight."How about the theater invite an FFL to set up in a corner of the lobby next to the popcorn so the clerk could ask, "Would you like extra butter, salt, a Glock 19, how about a snub nose Smith & Wesson?"Seeing armed people when you're unarmed can give you a vulnerable, naked feeling.Glad you understand that.This shouldn't be used to justify disarming everyone around you to make you feel better,Correct. (especially when they are supposed to have the right to bear arms in this country) if anything this should motivate you to go get a gun and carry it yourself! (not YOU, i'm sure anyone reading this is armed and carries themselves, but the movie goers)Guess what, Schlitz, that did happen, the thought of being unarmed where someone with malicious intent may be armed did increase gun sales.

Bloomberg Businessweek - Colorado Gun Sales Surge After the Aurora Massacre (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-24/colorado-gun-sales-surge-after-the-aurora-massacre)

It is the intent that is unknown. Today, when someone sees an armed person they do not know, they probably do wonder, "What is that person's intentions?" Heck, I do.

I know, I know...if you see a person open carrying, they must be a good guy because bad guys do not open carry. Sadly, that analogy is becoming weak as normal looking people are starting to be frequent contributors to gun violence statistics.

If the story about Holmes in Aurora is true, that he first entered the theater normally with his red hair, wouldn't that be considered normal for a devoted Batman fan, one who is a fan of the "Joker" character? But, his intentions were bad.EDIT:

In summation, I'm not crazy or unreasonable.Dude, if you have to declare that...:animlol: :rofl::faint: No, I doubt you are, just overly demonstrative sometimes...:whistling:I think the movie goers who become scared at the sight of open carry are letting their emotions stop their reasonable thinking. I would expect someone who is very emotional and doesn't think things through to get terrified at the sight of an open carried gun, but I'm not changing my mode of carry because they don't want to think things through.So, your intention is to deliberately intimidate everyone around you into becoming a 'believer'.As I said earlier, I don't think anyone's right to bear arms trumps the private property rights.That's good. You think a property/business owner may rightfully prohibit firearms if he/she/they believe having firearms on premises will scare their customers/patrons/visitors. Okay...

Schlitz
08-25-2012, 08:25
How about you, what are your predictions about when you go out open carrying?
...
What do you do to mitigate, prevent any unpleasantries

When I open carry I expect to be confronted by uneducated police officers. (see youtube) What can I do? I'm certainty not going to change my mode of carry based on someone's lack of education. I have yet to have an unpleasant open carry experience.

But, Misty went on to say... Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19341483#post19341483)
Quote:
However, most reasonable people should have been able to predict what the reaction to an openly carried firearm in a movie theater in that particular movie would have been.


Do you believe a reasonable prediction would include a negative reaction to ones firearm just a week after twelve people were killed?
See post 93, I addressed this. In summation, sure. You could predict people would react negatively, just like they could any other day. Mass shootings are almost a weekly/monthly occurrence now. If open carriers stop open carrying based off of these shootings then they'd never open carry.

Schlitz, have you ever feared that you were going to die, that death was imminent, it could, it would come within seconds?
No. I'm sure this will be used in the next post by the strawmen to say "ZOMG- SCHLITZ NEVER FEARED DEATH WAS IMMINENT - HE IS JUST TO IMMATURE TO UNDERSTAND" lol I hope you're not going where I think you could be going with this; that fearing imminent death is reasonable because someone is open carrying in a movie. If anyone actually thought death was imminent...they could have got up and walked out - better yet, if death was imminent they could have ran out.

How about the theater invite an FFL to set up in a corner of the lobby next to the popcorn so the clerk could ask, "Would you like extra butter, salt, a Glock 19, how about a snub nose Smith & Wesson?"
An EXCELLENT idea. I implore you to please bring this idea up to carmike cinemas, or whomever ran this theater.

Dude, if you have to declare that...
My opinions seem to greatly differ from the majority opinion on Glock talk, so sadly, I felt I had to declare it.:embarassed:

So, your intention is to deliberately intimidate everyone around you into becoming a 'believer'.
My intention would be to carry in the mode that is most comfortable for me. Everyone around me is not my concern, especially their political opinions about my mode of carry or their fears of my mode in carry when I'm trying to enjoy a movie. Their fears only exist because they have failed to really think things through.

That's good. You think a property/business owner may rightfully prohibit firearms if he/she/they believe having firearms on premises will scare their customers/patrons/visitors. Okay...
I think they have to the right to ban anything period. Doesn't have to be based on a belief. I feel private property is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner sets the rules. If you don't like it - don't patronize them.

Misty02
08-25-2012, 12:20
I did, the only part I can chime in on is:


Anyone can predict what could happen when they go out open carrying. It is not a secret that tons of people don't like the idea of citizens packing heat. I have open carried myself and every time I was fully prepared for the police to be called on me because I know plenty of people not only don't care for that method of carry, but they think NO ONE should do it unless they are a cop. With that said, I fall back to your words written above. I have no desire to nor do I promote catering to the unreasonable fears of others.

I think seeing a man open carrying in a theater of that specific movie and freaking out is unreasonable. I can understand with the media hype you could be....terrified! But that's not reasonable. I feel that a reasonable person would see that and say, "hmm, given the recent shooting in a movie theater it is probably a smart idea to start carrying a gun in places like this. I wish I had brought my gun tonight." Seeing armed people when you're unarmed can give you a vulnerable, naked feeling. This shouldn't be used to justify disarming everyone around you to make you feel better, (especially when they are supposed to have the right to bear arms in this country) if anything this should motivate you to go get a gun and carry it yourself! (not YOU, i'm sure anyone reading this is armed and carries themselves, but the movie goers)

EDIT:

In summation, I'm not crazy or unreasonable. I think the movie goers who become scared at the sight of open carry are letting their emotions stop their reasonable thinking. I would expect someone who is very emotional and doesn't think things through to get terrified at the sight of an open carried gun, but I'm not changing my mode of carry because they don't want to think things through.

As I said earlier, I don't think anyone's right to bear arms trumps the private property rights.


Sadly, right or wrong, we live amongst others and should do our part to peacefully coexist among them. Those others have fears and thoughts I don稚 share. Conversely, I may have some fears and thoughts others don稚 share. It requires a constant give and take. There are some things I won稚 bend on and there are others I may bend for, only because it is convenient to me (at the time or in the long run).

We have little to no control over the thoughts and actions of others, although we may have many opportunities to positively influence them. We have just as many opportunities to negatively influence others and push them further away. This doesn稚 apply just to firearms, it applies to most things were opinions differ.

I too believe that it is unreasonable and illogical to become terrified at the sight of an openly carried handgun if the person that is carrying is not sending signals that justify that possible fear. I wasn't there so I don't know if that person was sending those signals or not. That doesn稚 change the fact that OC to a theater to watch that particular movie, weeks after a horrible massacre, was insensitive and illogical when other options were present. Had the option not been present I would have fully understood the action.

How do you help a person with an irrational fear of heights work through them? Do you take them to the roof of a sky scraper, force them to stand on the ledge on their first trip and trick them into thinking you池e going to make them loose their balance? Do you take them to a construction site and ask them to stand on a beam the day after they saw the headlines of a construction worker who fell from one to his death?

There is a time and a place for most things, that applies to OC as well. If we are going to work toward gaining acceptance from others and demonstrating there is no reason to fear us because we are armed, we must go about it tactfully. Shoving things down people痴 throat rarely works, it has a tendency to have the opposite effect. It takes time and hard work, more so when you池e working with phobias and irrational fears.

I get a great deal of satisfaction when I read/hear of OC stories where the carrier was able to positively influence the opinion of another. I get the same satisfaction when I take someone to the range who says they're against anyone owning a handgun for self-defense and months later they're asking me which handgun do I belive is best to have at home or carry.

This particular story at that specific time in that particular place accomplished exactly the opposite of what most of us want.

Just my uneducated opinion though, that and $1.07 will buy you a small coffee at McDonalds, so it痴 not much.

.

Misty02
08-25-2012, 13:37
If I may, I would like to pose some possible irrational apprehensions (I can稚 really say it is fear) of mine. It has happened to me more than once and I have reacted to it each time. If I were to explain it to others, I would likely get some comments about my apprehensions and reactions thereafter as being unreasonable. I will give you partially comparable observations that didn稚 yield the same apprehension and reaction from me.

I値l start by stating that I don稚 believe men should go out in a wife beater kind of undershirt. Those should be used as the name implies 砥nder shirts or to be at home.

I致e seen muscular young men in the mall that are otherwise clean cut and well dressed in those undershirts, some have been alone others in a group. A glance has led me to develop the opinion that they池e just showing off their muscles, they don稚 appear to pose a threat. I continue on my merry way giving them little thought or further careful observation.

My level of apprehension has not been the same when observing the same type of undershirt worn by scrawny looking individuals coupled with pants barely hanging by the hip, underpants exposed and other poor grooming signs. Those will get more of my attention. A group exhibiting the same grooming and dress habit will elicit some apprehension on my part. Anything further I observe that increases my discomfort results in my immediate desire to leave such a place, more often than not I will act on that desire.

Am I unfairly judging others due to their dress and grooming habits? Perhaps.

Some here may agree with me, a few may not. Why? Because a large number of those that carry believe they should be presentable, polite and courteous toward others while out and about. Our group may have some personally established parameters on the matter of dress and how most should behave out in public. Just the same, in some 菟ants falling down forum where that matter of dress is perfectly common and acceptable, if they were to learn of my apprehension, they値l be discussing how irrational I am toward people that dress differently than I do.



.

Schlitz
08-25-2012, 18:53
That doesn’t change the fact that OC to a theater to watch that particular movie, weeks after a horrible massacre, was insensitive and illogical when other options were present.

Well misty we can agree to disagree. I think it is logical - especially given the circumstances of what happened weeks prior.


Your belief that a theatre ticket seller would confront a armed patron shows how put of touch you are with current practice.AGAIN - why would the seller confront anyone?
"Sir, the theater has a no firearms policy. Enjoy the show." <this is not confrontation. This is being polite and informing your costumers of your policies. If he decides to enter after learning of the policy THEN the police should be involved to confront him, remove him from the theater, and charge him with trespassing.

This itself is more of that rhetoric geared at gaining a response based on emotions and not logic.
how could a young teen working at the movies as a mere ticket salesman confront an armed patron - THINK OF THE CHILDREN

For goodness sake the man didn't walk up to the counter with his gun drawn and ask for a ticket, if he did we would be having a different discussion. There was no mention of him acting crazy or angry. All we've read is that he entered a theater armed.

Misty02
08-25-2012, 19:24
Well misty we can agree to disagree. I think it is logical - especially given the circumstances of what happened weeks prior.


We can indeed agree to disagree on that one, but just on the way he carried when another option was at his disposal. I don稚 believe people should go unarmed to a movie theater, or anywhere else where it is legal for that matter.

I haven稚 seen the movie yet, I値l wait for it to come out on DVD. The main reason I didn稚 go see it is because people mentioned purses and bags were being checked. I don稚 carry in a purse or bag, but I will not knowingly subject myself to a search just to watch a movie that I can see later.

.

Schlitz
08-25-2012, 20:01
I haven稚 seen the movie yet, I値l wait for it to come out on DVD. The main reason I didn稚 go see it is because people mentioned purses and bags were being checked. I don稚 carry in a purse or bag, but I will not knowingly subject myself to a search just to watch a movie that I can see later.

.

Same. Well...not the purse part, as I don't carry one. I'd prefer to see the movie from the comfort of my home without rude teenagers talking, texting, and letting their phones ring in the movie. Don't forget the crying 3 month old at the movies climax - or the crazed gunman who wants to be the joker storming into the theater with an AR15:dunno:

Oh, and I don't have to pay $5 dollars for a bottle of water and another $7 for pop corn.:cool:

Misty02
08-25-2012, 20:45
Same. Well...not the purse part, as I don't carry one. I'd prefer to see the movie from the comfort of my home without rude teenagers talking, texting, and letting their phones ring in the movie. Don't forget the crying 3 month old at the movies climax - or the crazed gunman who wants to be the joker storming into the theater with an AR15:dunno:

Oh, and I don't have to pay $5 dollars for a bottle of water and another $7 for pop corn.:cool:

When you add it all together, the DVD at home sounds divine! :)

.

SgtScott31
08-25-2012, 21:33
Just to add that in TN Handgun Carry Permit (HCP) holders have the option to carry concealed or openly. I can't speak for the entire state, but I have rarely ever seen a permit holder carry openly in my neck of the woods; and I was born & raised here. I too agree that doing so in a theater to the exact same movie was a bad move.

If a sign is posted where it is supposed to be, officers are not obligated to give the person a chance to leave. They can arrest on the spot for carrying where prohibited. I know there was some question as to the location of the sign, so we probably won't know one way or the other whether the carrier saw it. I do know for a fact that I've read on this forum (and others) about persons carrying when they knew it was prohibited to do so. Not to suggest this was the case, but obviously the officers on scene felt that there could have been a possibility the sign wasn't posted correctly or wasn't in compliance and chose to exercise some discretion in the matter.

As far as officers making contact in TN, one must understand in our state that a HCP is simply a defense to unlawful carry of a weapon. Officers who see a weapon can stop the person to verify they are carrying legally. TN law allows the officer to disarm if he feels there's a safety concern. The officers did not disarm the holders in this situation or even ask to see their permit from the way I read the story. They could have went a completely different route so I hope no one gives them grief about the way it was handled.

With regards to people freaking out at the sight of a firearm, I think it's a little unnecessary, but it's a fact of life and I don't see any of us changing the attitude of millions of people overnight. Regardless of our opinion on the matter, it was a bad move at the time. I agree with Misty and it continues to happen. You will have plenty of pro-gun folks out there attempting to shove open and/or concealed carry down the throat of others, including law enforcement officers by challenging them with cameras rolling. If you think this is a smart way of doing things, you're dead wrong. I have said it before and I will say it again, sometimes the biggest enemy to the 2nd Amendment are the ones trying the hardest to support it.

shotgunred
08-26-2012, 09:14
It is nice to live in a state that those signs are not legally enforceable.:supergrin:

Schlitz
08-26-2012, 15:17
It is nice to live in a state that those signs are not legally enforceable.:supergrin:

enforceable or not, I avoid those places. I don't to give them my money.:cool: