It doesn't matter what we think about it, TABC thinks they do which is why they are a blue sign.
Cinemark and 30.05 sign
12,428 Views |
118 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by FlyRod
Angry Elephant is also a blue sign.
you seem to have a lot of confidence
cslifer said:
Angry Elephant is also a blue sign.
You sure? I really thought I saw a 51% last time I was in there. Was meeting someone for lunch and actually making a conscious decision to take my carry back to the car.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
The TABC website is open for anyone that wants to check.
I wonder if Dixie Chicken/TABC counts the merch sales (tshirts, etc) when determining the blue sign (<51% alcohol).
Why wouldn't they? It is calculated off of gross receipts.
cslifer said:
The TABC website is open for anyone that wants to check.
I'm going to drive by and look. I would not have taken my carry back for a blue sign obviously so I'm not sure what to think. I'll report back.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
what do you do when you fly commercial airlines or maybe you don't
Nobody is carrying onto a commercial aircraft. Not sure what that has to do with walking past a 30.06 sign which is an entirely different decision. The full answer is if you want a gun where you're going you lock it in a box and put it in your checked bag which is perfectly legal.happyinBCS said:
what do you do when you fly commercial airlines or maybe you don't
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
Yeah, 30.05 is a bit different. There's still questions as to whether a generic "no weapons" sign would exclude an LTC holder entering with a pocket knife or similar since the DTP only applies for entering with a handgun. It would certainly exclude an LTC holder OC a long gun. The DTP is going to have to be clarified by the Legislature at some point.LOYAL AG said:txyaloo said:This is not accurate. With Constitutional Carry, no guns/gun buster signs, carry force of law for unlicensed carry. Business may opt to install 30.05 signs, but there is no requirement to do so in the penal code.LOYAL AG said:JR Ewing said:woodiewood1 said:A lot of places are changing because the 30.07 only prohibits open carry.. The 30.05 prohibits unlicensed carriers and a lot are also putting up the 30.06 signs so they don't want any firearms.JR Ewing said:
Did I miss when Cinemark switched from a 30.07 sign to a 30.05 firearms prohibited sign? Was that recent? I will not be going there anymore. Hope they go bankrupt...
People don't realize that the average person who carries is not a risk as it the criminals who most all cannot even have a gun is causing the problems. Criminals don't follow laws. People making decisions just lack critical thinking skills.
That's their right and it's our right not to go there. Freedom for everyone!
30.05 with a no firearms sign is criminal trespass if you have one. It is essentially a no-go, licensed or not.
This is false. 30.05 specifically refers to unlicensed carry. The "no guns" sign has no meaning in Texas.Quote:
Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Good to know. I RM thought I'd read where 30.05 signage worked like the other two.
txyaloo said:Yeah, 30.05 is a bit different. There's still questions as to whether a generic "no weapons" sign would exclude an LTC holder entering with a pocket knife or similar since the DTP only applies for entering with a handgun. It would certainly exclude an LTC holder OC a long gun. The DTP is going to have to be clarified by the Legislature at some point.LOYAL AG said:txyaloo said:This is not accurate. With Constitutional Carry, no guns/gun buster signs, carry force of law for unlicensed carry. Business may opt to install 30.05 signs, but there is no requirement to do so in the penal code.LOYAL AG said:JR Ewing said:woodiewood1 said:A lot of places are changing because the 30.07 only prohibits open carry.. The 30.05 prohibits unlicensed carriers and a lot are also putting up the 30.06 signs so they don't want any firearms.JR Ewing said:
Did I miss when Cinemark switched from a 30.07 sign to a 30.05 firearms prohibited sign? Was that recent? I will not be going there anymore. Hope they go bankrupt...
People don't realize that the average person who carries is not a risk as it the criminals who most all cannot even have a gun is causing the problems. Criminals don't follow laws. People making decisions just lack critical thinking skills.
That's their right and it's our right not to go there. Freedom for everyone!
30.05 with a no firearms sign is criminal trespass if you have one. It is essentially a no-go, licensed or not.
This is false. 30.05 specifically refers to unlicensed carry. The "no guns" sign has no meaning in Texas.Quote:
Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Good to know. I RM thought I'd read where 30.05 signage worked like the other two.
Doesn't seem like the legislative intent was to allow any "no guns" sign given they were pretty specific as to what constitutes a notice under (c). It will be interesting to see how the court interprets "may".
LOYAL AG said:Again with the caveat that walking past a 51% sign is a felony. If they don't ask you to leave but instead call 911 because they're scared and unwilling to approach you that could be a real problem.Rockdoc said:
If you have an LTC, carry no matter what signs they have. If they ask you to leave, just leave. And take your business elsewhere.
Oh no, absolutely don't walk past the alcohol sign.
The statistical probability of being in a theater with a mass shooter vs the probability a "well trained, licensed concealed gun owner" accidentally shoots innocent bystanders in an attempt to stop the mass shooter is staggering. I'll take my chances of it not happening vs some redneck looking for a reason to use the gun he feels compelled to carry everywhere.Love Gun said:
I ignore every one of those signs. If you make an issue over my concealed firearm, of which I'm trained and licensed to carry in many states, I'll take my criminal trespass warning - and my business elsewhere. I'm not going to put myself in a situation where I will potentially need a gun and not have one. If some idiot wants to try to come in and ventilate everyone in the room, they clearly don't care about your anti-gun stance and/or your signs - and neither will I.
Make no mistake, these are good vs. evil situations. There is evil in this world, and people like me aren't it. I'm sorry you aren't as trusting of me and my training because you think guns are to blame for killing people.
Could you please post the data and proof of your claim?
happyinBCS
Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
Posts:
1,801
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's being published…Seriously though, my point is that it the likelihood that a theater goer will be present during a mass shooting event is a significantly less than the probability a concealed gun carry would killed by a car going to the theater. There is a myth that no innocent bystander has ever been shot by a concealed carry shooter, but there is no research on whether anyone was injured/killed by a gun carrier trying to stop a gun because 1) the incident is so low and 2) because the likelihood of a conceal carry owner would even be present in that situation is extremely low. To date, there is only anecdotal evidence. The point I was making…in my opinion, is that people who feel compelled to carry a weapon at all times in people, are either in a job/lifestyle that makes it much more likely they will encounter a shooter or they just like the idea of the possibility that an incident will happen in their lifetime , however unlikely that may be. Im all for gun ownership, I just disagree that America needs to regress to the old west to ensure everyone's safety. Now, defense against tyranny is something completely different.BCStalk said:
Could you please post the data and proof of your claim?
Read your first sentence. I'll wait for your proof and not your opinion. Let us know when you have something worth reading.
According to the FBI, 6 active shooters were killed by legally armed citizens in 2021.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/26/fbi-active-shooters-citizens/
I do not recall stories of that many legally carrying citizens spraying innocent people. I do recall one in Houston, but that is all I can remember.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/26/fbi-active-shooters-citizens/
I do not recall stories of that many legally carrying citizens spraying innocent people. I do recall one in Houston, but that is all I can remember.
Doesn't fit his narrative
BCStalk said:
Doesn't fit his narrative
Yep. We're just 'rednecks that are compelled to carry our guns everywhere'.
**** Joe Biden
Carry concealed anyway. If they notice and ask you to leave, leave
But they already asked you not to bring it in, hence the sign. This board cracks me up, people love to talk about their rights, but when someone else exercises their rights on their private property it is ok to ignore them because your rights are more important.
Look at it like this. If a 5 star restaurant had a dress code that said no flip flops, you would respect that. This is the same thing, the business owner for whatever reason doesn't want guns on his property, that is his prerogative as the business owner. Why not just respect him and go elsewhere? By ignoring his request and acting like a jack@@@ all you do is reinforce his line of thinking about guns and the people that carry them.
Look at it like this. If a 5 star restaurant had a dress code that said no flip flops, you would respect that. This is the same thing, the business owner for whatever reason doesn't want guns on his property, that is his prerogative as the business owner. Why not just respect him and go elsewhere? By ignoring his request and acting like a jack@@@ all you do is reinforce his line of thinking about guns and the people that carry them.
cslifer said:
But they already asked you not to bring it in, hence the sign. This board cracks me up, people love to talk about their rights, but when someone else exercises their rights on their private property it is ok to ignore them because your rights are more important.
Look at it like this. If a 5 star restaurant had a dress code that said no flip flops, you would respect that. This is the same thing, the business owner for whatever reason doesn't want guns on his property, that is his prerogative as the business owner. Why not just respect him and go elsewhere? By ignoring his request and acting like a jack@@@ all you do is reinforce his line of thinking about guns and the people that carry them.
I don't carry on about my rights being more important, while trying to piss off property owners. I do, however, not make it a point to 1. Look out for and abide by a piece of paper taped to the door, and 2. Carry in a manner where anyone can see my firearm. If someone sees my concealed carry (including a potential bad guy), I've failed.
If an anti-gun owner somehow sees my weapon and asks me to leave, or calls the cops and they ask me to leave, I leave. No harm no foul. I'm not one of those types to throw it in your face and whine about rights. I'm not carrying to make a statement - even though people like you think that the weapon on my hip will somehow unholster itself and start firing.
**** Joe Biden
First of all my post was about the rights of the owner to govern his business/property as he wishes, I said nothing about your gun jumping off your hip or whatever nonsense you said.
Second, you are referring to yourself as a "guardian angel" and expounding about how you can "take on someone force on force". You are going more than a bit overboard with this concealed carry stuff. You sound like exactly the kind of person I would not want in my business with a gun.
Second, you are referring to yourself as a "guardian angel" and expounding about how you can "take on someone force on force". You are going more than a bit overboard with this concealed carry stuff. You sound like exactly the kind of person I would not want in my business with a gun.
Unfortunately bad guys don't pay attention to the property owner's "rights" when they open fire.
In the case of concealed carry, the property owner doesn't realize his "rights are being violated."
In the case of concealed carry, the property owner doesn't realize his "rights are being violated."
Let's look at your post in two parts..
1. You put the word rights in quotation marks. The law specifically lays out that a property owner has the ability to ban guns on their property. I have been arguing that people are ignoring the property owners' rights because they think theirs are more important, thanks for confirming.
2. You seem to think it is ok that all is good as long as the other party "doesn't know their rights are violated". Does this mean we should go back to racial profiling or any other rights violations? As you said, it is ok as long as they don't know it is happening, right?
The way you describe it, I can poop in your yard every morning. As long as you just think it is a really big dog doing it then all is good, because you don't realize it is actually a person.
1. You put the word rights in quotation marks. The law specifically lays out that a property owner has the ability to ban guns on their property. I have been arguing that people are ignoring the property owners' rights because they think theirs are more important, thanks for confirming.
2. You seem to think it is ok that all is good as long as the other party "doesn't know their rights are violated". Does this mean we should go back to racial profiling or any other rights violations? As you said, it is ok as long as they don't know it is happening, right?
The way you describe it, I can poop in your yard every morning. As long as you just think it is a really big dog doing it then all is good, because you don't realize it is actually a person.
As someone who has been racially profiled several times in my life, I would ask that you would not try and use it as an example to one up someone on a public forum. Like everything else in the news, you must drag something about race into it and makes this into a childish argument instead of an informative conversation.
I am not trying to one up anyone. I am simply responding to a post. Racial profiling fits the argument perfectly as it is a rights violation that people often don't even realize has happened. I was obviously not talking about race in the context that ironically you are.
Since you mentioned it though, what else from the news have I brought up and mentioned race? Can you show me a single post?
Since you mentioned it though, what else from the news have I brought up and mentioned race? Can you show me a single post?
Please don't try and explain yourself unless you have lived through racial profiling. You think you are making a valid comparison, but you are just insulting people who have dealt with it. The conversation is about carrying a firearm, not race.
cslifer said:
You sound like exactly the kind of person I would not want in my business with a gun.
At this point in our lives, and in this fractured and divided society, it's best you pick a side. Someone can easily come in to your business with a firearm. Accept that. Who would you rather have:
1. A wolf in sheep's clothing that chooses to ignore your sign(s) and break the law with malicious intent
OR
2. A sheepdog like me that "breaks" the law to do everything I've been trained to do to stop him
**** Joe Biden
At this point you are just trying to derail a discussion because you don't like the terms used and examples given.
Your description of yourself just confirmed what I said in my above post!
cslifer said:
Your description of yourself just confirmed what I said in my above post!
Cool. Good to know. I feel much better knowing that.
**** Joe Biden