Regal-owned theaters = criminal-safe zone

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ID_shooting

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
1,811
Location
Boise, ID
Well now, we went to watch cars last ngiht and found the first "no weapons" sign I have ever seen in Idaho (aside from government controlled facilities)

Please critique the letter I am going to e-mail them later today.

""Dear Regal Entertainment,

Recently my wife and I decided to visit one of your theaters (Edwards 21 on Overland Road in Boise, Idaho) to see the movie “Cars.” This was to be the last event of an otherwise wonderful evening.

Sadly, I must tell you that we will no longer be patrons to your fine establishments.

I noticed a small sign on the cashier’s window stating your desire not to allow concealed weapons into your theater. Upon inquiry to management, I found that this policy is directed to holders of valid Concealed Weapons Permits as well as the non-law abiding populace.

Since your company’s choice is to create a criminal-safe zone where decent, peace loving families are left to the whims of any petty thug or violent person, I can no longer advocate my family’s patronage. Regretfully, I must also share this information with millions of fellow legally-armed citizens on a national level so that no one may unwittingly place themselves in avoidable danger.

I do ask that you revisit this decision as it is a known fact that criminals and people that do not obey the law will likely ignore your sign and bring weapons onto your premises regardless of your wishes. Likewise, law-abiding and honest citizens will follow your wishes and either disarm themselves or choose not to attend. Since I noticed a dire lack of armed security, one would hope that you do not intend to leave the scales of public safety so unbalanced. Doing so may leave your company liable in the event someone is harmed or otherwise assaulted on your property.

Should you desire more information, please visit www.thehighroad.org or www.a-human-right.com.

Thank you for your time.

Brian Gxxxxxxxx, Boise"
 
Last edited:
Brian,

Good message, except I would substitute something else for "gun culture". That term is constantly used in a negative fashion by the media to bash firearms owners, and in my opinion it would only harden Regal management's attitude against lawful CCW.
You might try something along the lines of "firearms enthusiasts" or another term with a more positive connotation.
Otherwise, go for it. Let us know if they respond.
 
Good letter--clear, rational, and polite.

Unless I missed something on Packing.org, signs such as you saw at the theater don't have any legal force in Idaho. If that's the case, you wouldn't have been breaking any law had you carried concealed in the theater. Of course, I understand the principled stance that says that it is the property owner's right to determine what activity takes place on his property and that, as a matter of principle, one shouldn't carry where prohibited. Legality and morality are unfortunately not the same thing.
 
RM,

Ya, I struggled with the term "gun culture." It seems MSM has perverted that term to be a bad thing these days.

I would like to still use it as it is the proper term.

Anyone else have any more ideas for an alternate?
 
don't mention the long line. it sounds like you're predisposed to being whiny, and you're reminding them that they have so many customers, they don't need you.

you don't regret sharing that info with gun nuts, so don't say you do.

don't call them a corporate entity. just ask them to reconsider.

no longer advocate my family’s patronage?
leave the scales of public safety so unbalanced? come on :)

harmed and assaulted are redundant.

don't send them to THR for more info, where they'll just read this thread. ask them to contact you and be prepared for a discussion.
 
it's their property and their terms of service so they make the rules.
Click to expand...
It's our money so we choose whether or not to spend it there.
of course it's concealed so how do they know?
Sign? what sign?
Click to expand...
Sure, it's possible to do. What happens when you sneak past their highly trained ticket-takers? Nothing. You carry your gun and have it with you and they go on prohibiting it and others either follow the rule or break it. What is the outcome? Nada.

If a company explictly states that they don't want the business of those who carry a handgun, why do you want to give them any more of your money?
 
Depending on what state you live in those signs may or may not be enforceable. I know Texas has some pretty clear rules. I know here that if you're "caught" with a concealed weopon and refuse to leave it's criminal tresspass. It's only a misdemenor but will proabably cost you your permit. Of course in Georgia if the cops can't get you on anything else they can always pull the "public gathering" rabbit out.

I stated on this forum many times. I carry where I want to carry, which pretty much means if they don't have metal detectors I'm going for it. The penalties here are light (if any).
 
Talive

“don't mention the long line. it sounds like you're predisposed to being whiny, and you're reminding them that they have so many customers, they don't need you.” Good point, edited

“you don't regret sharing that info with gun nuts, so don't say you do.” I do not share the info cuz I like to, so I am leave this.

“don't call them a corporate entity. just ask them to reconsider.” Another good point, changed

“no longer advocate my family’s patronage?
leave the scales of public safety so unbalanced? come on” Writer discretion, I am leaving these.

“harmed and assaulted are redundant.” Minor edit here

“don't send them to THR for more info, where they'll just read this thread. ask them to contact you and be prepared for a discussion.” I will think about this, part of me welcomes them to come here.
 
it's their property and their terms of service so they make the rules.
Click to expand...

I've had just about enough of that bit of dogma.

Property of public accommodation has no business placing onerous restrictions on its peacable, appropriate use.

Sitting in a theater watching a movie is peacable, and appropriate.

Restricting arms is onerous.
 
Ya, I struggled with the term "gun culture." It seems MSM has perverted that term to be a bad thing these days.

I would like to still use it as it is the proper term.

Anyone else have any more ideas for an alternate?
Click to expand...

I like "Human Rights Organizations" or "Pro-Self Defense Groups". If you must reference guns than "Gun Rights" or "RKBA Movement" are good choices.

it's their property and their terms of service so they make the rules.
Click to expand...
In addition to what geekWithA.45 said, it is part of our role as consumers to let businesses know when their actions are going to cost them our business (especially if we would really like to continue to use their product/service).
 
the more I read things like this the further I rock on the fence of property owner rights when they own a space open to the public and the rights of a gun owner to bare his arms. When everyone just slaps up a sign your option can be limited or outright gone. Look at amusment parks, how many have you seen that allow you to carry firearms? Maybe you have seen one because I NEVER have and checking has only gotten worse post-911.

So yes in theory you can take your money elsewhere but what happens when there is no place around for you to take your money because the entire industry has banned it?

I then look at the fact you can't for instance kick a black person out just because you don't like them. Or a disabled person out because you don't like the disabled.

More and more I am falling away from the idea of the right of a property owner who owns a space open to the general public (even if for a fee) to hinder a persons civil right to carry their firearms.
 
it's their property and their terms of service so they make the rules.
Click to expand...

I agree with Geek and with Lupinus that this is unacceptable from a business open to the general public (and which, by the way, is also afforded protection via the police and the courts by the general public's tax dollars). Does the fact that you own a business open to the general public allow you to post and enforce a sign that says, for example, "No Blacks Allowed?" No chance, nor should there be a chance. I don't think that any state legislature should allow this.

I haven't been to a Regal theater (or any, for that matter) in quite a while. This has to do with a combination of having little kids, crappy movies and over-priced tickets. Thus, I don't know if the local Regals have such a sign (but I'd frankly be surprised if they DID). The only places where I see the signs (see below) is at hospitals, some medical buildings and at a certain local building that has an old sign, quoting the wrong law, so that I CAN carry there (again, see below).

As far as Texas is concerned, there has to be a VERY specifically-worded sign displayed in a very prominant location near the entrance, or the sign is meaningless. Literally having the lettering be too small, or having one letter or punctuation mark added or left off means that you are legal. Of course, some employee can always ask you verbally to leave, sign or not, and if you refuse you've committed criminal trespass and will have your CHL pulled (for starters). However, the latter case requires that the business actually know that you have a gun, and in THAT case concealed means concealed.

BTW, Sea World in San Antonio has no 30.06 sign - and Texas law is very clear that even amusement parks must post or the ordinary restriction against carrying in an amusement park doesn't apply - just like in houses of worship...no sign, and I'm going to carry.
 
yeah Sam but do they search your bag and make you go through a metal detector on the way in? Every amusement park short of the run down little crappy ones that I have been to has and then comes into play and employee asking you to leave when they find your gun.

I have no problem with a business owner running his business and managing his property however he sees fit, I would even go so far as to say I don't care when a few places around town so no firearms. When it becomes a problem is when the entire industry begins making it impossible and taking your business elsewhere is no longer an option. A pharmacy doesn't want to carry the morning after pill? Fine in my opinion unless you are the only pharmacy for miles and miles around and people have no other practical choice to take their money. No guns allowed? Fine, I will go to the place down the street, but when there isn't a place down the street that has no such restriction it becomes a problem. Could go on and on. It only becomes a problem in my eyes when a customer of reasonable means and ability has no other option because the industry has closed it off by every company in the industry has posted signs. Carrying a firearm is my constitutionally protected right, not just owning, carrying them. I have as much natural, legal, and civil right to keep and bare arms as a black man has to be black. And for those that say owning and baring arms is a choice you bet it is, but then again so is being a Jew, Catholic, or worshiper the almighty Spork, and we can't discriminate based on those choices either. So long as other options are open fine, when there aren't other options open then it becomes a problem and the backlash should be that now no business can discriminate against it.
 
Speaking for the Texas CHL laws: I've pointed out that in order to get a CHL, one is fingerprinted, "mug-shotted", approved by local law enforcement, approved by the FBI's crime check, and has attended a training course.

This is official proof that one is a peaceful, honest person, and are equal in this regard to any policeman.

The training course includes a lengthy session on conflict resolution with avoidance of violence. One must, of course, demonstate knowledge and proficiency in the use of a handgun.

The questions, then, are: "Have you or your employees gone through such a background check? Have you or any of your employees had any training at all in peaceful conflict resolution? Why would you have any concern as to the presence of a licensee with his handgun? If you trust a doctor or a bus/taxi driver with your life, why would you not trust him with a handgun?"

Art
 
So, Lupinus, you support a property owner's right to manage his privately owned business as he sees fit, unless it inconveniences you?

A radius of how many miles is required before you nullify the private property rights which you contend do, in fact, exist?

A pharmacy doesn't want to carry the morning after pill? Fine in my opinion unless you are the only pharmacy for miles and miles around and people have no other practical choice to take their money.
Click to expand...

Without hijacking this thread entirely, this is an especially poor choice of examples, for practical, medical, and moral reasons. By forum rules, those reasons are not properly discussed here.
 
So, Lupinus, you support a property owner's right to manage his privately owned business as he sees fit, unless it inconveniences you?
Click to expand...
No, not of inconvenience, of closing off an industry to those wishing to exorcise their right. Driving an extra 20 minutes is an inconvenience but one I would gladly take to do my business in a place which didn't feel the need to infringe on my rights, having to drive an extra two hours to get to the closest place which doesn't is not a matter of inconvenience but of effectively closing off the local industry to those of a certain group, in this case gun owners and more specifically carriers.

A radius of how many miles is required before you nullify the private property rights which you contend do, in fact, exist?
Click to expand...
Depends. If by posting a sign is he effectively closing off the industry to those wishing to carry? If he is then he shouldn't be allowed to post it.

Without hijacking this thread entirely, this is an especially poor choice of examples, for practical, medical, and moral reasons. By forum rules, those reasons are not properly discussed here.
Click to expand...
I don't see it as a poor example. My not having my firearm could lead to some medical problems for me because they are telling me no guns allowed. It all goes to the property rights of the owner and the civil rights of the patrons. If there are other options for the patrons the owner can have more leeway, if the patrons have no other option or every owner has made the same decision in effect closing off the industry to a certain group the owners then get less leeway. I am sure plenty of people who own movie theaters dislike certain groups of people but for PC reasons would never think of denying them entry unless the group made concessions and changed themselves to fit to the owners liking.
 
Went to a Texas Regal this weekend - no 30.06 sign.

About property rights - since the business owner is open to the public and expects taxpayer money to supply police to come to his or her business, I oppose them having the right to ban. Once you open to the public - I would argue that bans are not valid unless there is a technical reason for such - like near the MRI.
 
Your letter to Corporate is appropriate and needed.

However, as has already been pointed out in this thread, businesses open to the public in Idaho have no legal recourse (I'm not a lawyer, but I can read) under the law if you ignore their little sign.

What can they do? Ask you to leave?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Regal Movie Theater chain...
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
.45&TKD
4
N
  • Locked
Regal Theaters
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
F
  • Locked
My letter to Steak and Shake, re: CCW
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
rabidgoldfish
R
Larry Ashcraft
  • Locked
Letter from my Senator...
Replies
13
Views
837
Freakhouse
F
D
  • Locked
Going postal in gun-free zones
Replies
1
Views
313
Alex45ACP
A
Back
Top