Alamo Drafthouse @ Mason in Katy posted non-compliant 30.06

McKnife · Post by **McKnife** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:35 am

I just got back from an interesting night out courtesy of Alamo Drafthouse. Right before I walk in the front (with ticket in hand), I barely spot the dreadful 30.06 sign posted right above the â€˜unlicensed possessionâ€? sign.

It is obviously non-compliant being that it was printed on an 8x11 letter size piece of computer paper in black and whiteâ€¦ from the DPS website.

I unhappily submitted peacefully by going back to my vehicle and disarming myself.

After entry into the building, I quietly pointed out the sign to the manager and asked if he knew what it stood for. Apparently he felt threatened by my gesture because immediately after reading the sign, he asked loudly â€œWho has a gun? Do you have a gun?â€?

I walked inside the theater and sat in my seatâ€¦ I didnâ€™t want to make a scene, especially since there is a police station down the block.

It seems that this manager could care less about customer safety. I wish I could remember his name.

Iâ€™m so happy those tickets were free (coupon)â€¦ I will not being going back as long as that sign is there. Not to mention, being questioned like a gangster.

Should we let them know?

Alamo Drafthouse: Mason Park
Address: 531 South Mason Road, Katy Texas
Phone: 281-492-6900
Comments Email: Comments.Mason@Drafthouse.com

phddan · Post by **phddan** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:13 am

Why would you submit peaceably to an unlawful sign?

Dan

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Mon May 14, 2007 8:48 am

Private establishment, their rules...

http://www.drafthouse.com/Mason/frames.asp

I'm sure either nothing will be done, or the sign will be corrected if someone else here goes to this place...

Maybe an interesting "sticky" thread idea might work in conjunction with the 30.06 thread, and the Russell's external website...

Might be titled "Gun-Free-Zones" which is inclusive of buildings, businesses or other facilities that posts corrctly or not...

I mean, maybe we should call these places for what they are...I think we should be fair and clear on this point...

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:07 am

Russell wrote:What was uncompliant about it? Were the letters not 1" tall?

He said it was on a standard sheet of paper, so the letters were definitely not 1" tall.

I wouldn't have "complied" with a non-compliant sign.

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:26 am

KBCraig wrote:I wouldn't have "complied" with a non-compliant sign.

Particularly not with an "Unlicensed Possession . . ." sign adjacent to it, I would just assume that the management is terribly confused and that they don't realize the order of precedence for such signs dictates that the "UL" sign overrules the 30.06.

HankB · Post by **HankB** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:47 am

KBCraig wrote:I wouldn't have "complied" with a non-compliant sign.

Nothing more to add.

nitrogen · Post by **nitrogen** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:13 pm

I usually will comply with signs that are visible, and are at least an honest attempt at compliance, but in some cases, like waiting on line for seats at a theater, I'll use the excuse of a non compliant sign to ignore it.

NcongruNt · Post by **NcongruNt** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:23 pm

jimlongley wrote:
KBCraig wrote:I wouldn't have "complied" with a non-compliant sign.
Particularly not with an "Unlicensed Possession . . ." sign adjacent to it, I would just assume that the management is terribly confused and that they don't realize the order of precedence for such signs dictates that the "UL" sign overrules the 30.06.

Well, the "unlicensed possession" sign is something TABC requires them to post, as they serve alcohol. They don't have any choice in posting that sign. The 30.06 was the only voluntary action on the part of management. They are within their rights, though obviously did not meet the requirements put forth by the law for a valid sign.

My impression is that the management is poorly informed, just as most people are. My experience with these types of folks is that they see anyone carrying a gun under CHL is a "risk of escalation". The common belief is that a person with a handgun is going to use a gun as a threat to gain dominance in a trivial situation. This cannot be further from the truth with all of the CHLers I have ever come in contact with.

bburgi · Post by **bburgi** » Mon May 14, 2007 7:09 pm

#1 - why did you comply with the sign if it holds no legal weight ? You said you were unhappy about disarming, so why did you? You were under no compulsion to do so.

#2 - why did you talk to the manager about it? If the sign does not comply to the law, why inform him? Let them go about feeling "safe" and let the CHL holders go about carrying. By informing him of the erroneous sign, they may go and post the correct sign - taking away our ability to carry there.

Not criticizing you, just pointing out my thoughts on your scenario.

McKnife · Post by **McKnife** » Mon May 14, 2007 8:03 pm

I understand I could have walked in without a problem, but the reason I disarmed myself was because I planned on asking the manager about the sign.

Disarming was simply a precaution in case the manager decided to freak out and call the cops (which were next door). I didn't want to become a test case, so I prepared myself.

Thank God I did, because the manager DID freak out. What a loser. I wouldn't be surprised if he called 911, but I didnâ€™t want to find out so I walked in the theater and found a seat before anything escalated.