Regal cinemas Pinnicle 18?

[Guest sjrichmond21]

Anyone know the status on carrying there?

[Erik88]

I go there often. Its NOT posted that I've ever noticed. Though I wouldn't open carry there

[BrasilNuts]

Last time I went there I looked as I walked in and didn't see it.

When I left I gave it a closer look and if I am not mistaken it is in very small print hidden in with a bunch of other do nots on the left side of the right set of doors.

It's not very obvious and I don't recall if it was a legal posting or not.

[Guest sjrichmond21]

Thanks guys i was down there tonight and didnt notice anything on either side of the ticket booth.

[vontar]

Most Regal cinemas normally have a small GB, I know the one in West Town mall does, but I haven't been to 18 at Turkey Creek in a while but I will be back for Tron Imax very soon.

[Erik88]

alright guys, I went to the theater today to see True Grit and sure enough IT IS POSTED. It's a tiny tiny gunbuster sign right near the front doors. So small that I've never noticed it in the 100 times I've been there.

[Spiffy]

We probably need to talk to our State Reps about getting a size requirement for legal signage. It does little good to have a posting that you can't read.

[Guest Red5]

We probably need to talk to our State Reps about getting a size requirement for legal signage. It does little good to have a posting that you can't read.

Mmmm.....I think the posting requirement pot should remain un-stirred. I doubt further regulations/requirements would have any beneficial impact on the HCP holder.

Just my opinion.

[Erik88]

Mmmm.....I think the posting requirement pot should remain un-stirred. I doubt further regulations/requirements would have any beneficial impact on the HCP holder.

Just my opinion.

+1000

[Fallguy]

When it comes to the requirement for signs...one issue has always been signs on state buildings and the cost to change them. That is why government buildings that were already posted were covered under 39-17-1359 when was first established and a leading reason as to why the circle and slash symbol is legal now.

They want to be able to prevent carry at any state buildings that are already posted (by any means) without having to change the sign. (Remember state parks on park carry) because changing and/or posting new ones cost money...and that is something that state doesn't want to spend money on.

So rather than just make the state capitol etc... off-limits by statute (not what I really want to see) they keep tweaking the sign law so that the postings already on state buildings are legal.

But I agree in general, I'm not sure if trying to change 39-17-1359 is the best thing now. If any change was to be made, I think simply removing the part that makes it a criminal offense would be the best. That way it really wouldn't matter what a sign said, the size etc.....

[Spiffy]

Mmmm.....I think the posting requirement pot should remain un-stirred. I doubt further regulations/requirements would have any beneficial impact on the HCP holder.

Just my opinion.

Be better to have them make the signs where you can actually see them as you go in without searching for it than getting jammed up because you missed the tenny tiny wittle bitty gun buster sign.

[Fallguy]

Be better to have them make the signs where you can actually see them as you go in without searching for it than getting jammed up because you missed the tenny tiny wittle bitty gun buster sign.

The law already says the signs must be "plainly visable"

[Guest Red5]

The law already says the signs must be "plainly visable"

Exactly. If I cannot see it as I am entering the place (and I am always looking) then the worst i could be "jammed up" is having the manager ask me to leave, certainly not any sort of legal penalty. No big deal; there are lots of other places that like my money.

As FG already said, the law already states that it shall be plainly visible, yet you continue to see tiny signs that are clearly not. Why? Because the whole "No Guns Allowed" issue is not about safety, its about money. If safety was a corporation's primary concern, and they truly believed that "no guns = safety", they would have signs plastered all over the front door. Saying that they have an official no guns policy keeps their anti-gun customers happy and posting in the most inconspicuous places allows the carrying customer to spend their money also. I'm not a business owner but it seems to me that these corporations are trying to keep everyone coming back to maximize their revenue.

So, as I said, I think that there is no point to pushing this issue with legislators. The law is on the books; let the businesses decide how they will post and we will continue to decide where to shop.

[Fallguy]

Exactly. If I cannot see it as I am entering the place (and I am always looking) then the worst i could be "jammed up" is having the manager ask me to leave, certainly not any sort of legal penalty. No big deal; there are lots of other places that like my money.

As FG already said, the law already states that it shall be plainly visible, yet you continue to see tiny signs that are clearly not. Why? Because the whole "No Guns Allowed" issue is not about safety, its about money. If safety was a corporation's primary concern, and they truly believed that "no guns = safety", they would have signs plastered all over the front door. Saying that they have an official no guns policy keeps their anti-gun customers happy and posting in the most inconspicuous places allows the carrying customer to spend their money also. I'm not a business owner but it seems to me that these corporations are trying to keep everyone coming back to maximize their revenue.

So, as I said, I think that there is no point to pushing this issue with legislators. The law is on the books; let the businesses decide how they will post and we will continue to decide where to shop.

Well I have never 100% subscribed that non-legal postings are intentional by the business owner in and effort to appease anti-s. I really think it is simply a lack of knowing/understanding the law.

But I do agree the majority of postings (legal and non) are about money. I think many business owners are afraid of being sued if they allow firearms and something happens.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Exactly. If I cannot see it as I am entering the place (and I am always looking) then the worst i could be "jammed up" is having the manager ask me to leave, certainly not any sort of legal penalty. No big deal; there are lots of other places that like my money.

As FG already said, the law already states that it shall be plainly visible, yet you continue to see tiny signs that are clearly not. Why? Because the whole "No Guns Allowed" issue is not about safety, its about money. If safety was a corporation's primary concern, and they truly believed that "no guns = safety", they would have signs plastered all over the front door. Saying that they have an official no guns policy keeps their anti-gun customers happy and posting in the most inconspicuous places allows the carrying customer to spend their money also. I'm not a business owner but it seems to me that these corporations are trying to keep everyone coming back to maximize their revenue.

So, as I said, I think that there is no point to pushing this issue with legislators. The law is on the books; let the businesses decide how they will post and we will continue to decide where to shop.

My question is who is going to step up & be the test for the new laws criminal penalty.

Is Plainly visible really the same for most? My definition is can't miss unless blind if entering that door whats everyone else's?

Oh & I also don't think the businesses are posting vaguely or incorrectly for our benefit.

And anyone that doesn't realize the criminal part was added to make some of us scared to carry has their head in the sand.

Edited December 31, 2010 by mcgyver210

[Fallguy]

My question is who is going to step up & be the test for the new laws criminal penalty.

Is Plainly visible really the same for most? My definition is can't miss unless blind if entering that door whats everyone elses?

Plainly visible is not new, been in the law since day one in 1996.

But I agree, plainly visible is a bit of a judgment thing (sort of like excessive celebration in College football if anyone watched the games yesterday). And that part is good. And this debate is good although for the last 14 years it is a bit academic since no one on the board at least knows of a case where someone was actually charged with a violation of 39-17-1359. I could be wrong, but my bet is 99.9% of the time you would just be told to leave even if you walked past a sign the covered the entire face of the front door.

And again I agree with you, IMO it means just as it says...it is plainly visible and is easily seen.

[Guest Red5]

Oh & I also don't think the businesses are posting vaguely or incorrectly for our benefit.

I dont think that they are anything for our benefit. As i said, IF it is intentional, it is for THEIR benefit. The benefit being revenue from both gun-hating and gun-loving consumers.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Plainly visible is not new, been in the law since day one in 1996.

But I agree, plainly visible is a bit of a judgment thing (sort of like excessive celebration in College football if anyone watched the games yesterday). And that part is good. And this debate is good although for the last 14 years it is a bit academic since no one on the board at least knows of a case where someone was actually charged with a violation of 39-17-1359. I could be wrong, but my bet is 99.9% of the time you would just be told to leave even if you walked past a sign the covered the entire face of the front door.

And again I agree with you, IMO it means just as it says...it is plainly visible and is easily seen.

I agree that plainly visible isn't new but the criminal offense is new as far as I remember. So Plainly visible is vague with no size etc & you or I could be charged & convicted just because someones definition of plainly visible isn't ours.

Too Small to see at the bottom of the door isn't plainly visible to me but if I see it I will then make a choice as to if I really need to enter that establishment or can go to a different business. I actually wish we had something more uniform since it is a criminal act to pass one now but we don't so now I am forced to look all over the entrance for a plainly visible sign that could look like anything & actually blend into the glass or other material because I am a law abiding citizen that has chosen to follow the rules as unfair as they are.

Oh & I also agree with most of what you said good comments but remember the new criminal part of the law is very new & hasn't been tested or even had enough time to be tested.

I dont think that they are anything for our benefit. As i said, IF it is intentional, it is for THEIR benefit. The benefit being revenue from both gun-hating and gun-loving consumers.

I fully agree with you on this which is why I have the policy of if I see a compliant or non-compliant sign I make a choice as to if I need to give that business my business but either way I don't carry past the sign. If they are gun haters I would rather deal with a business that isn't posted even if it cost more.

I guess what I meant is there are many that think the businesses that post incorrectly are doing it intentional so that we can enter anyway but I don't believe that is there intention. What I believe is they don't think they have to follow the rules or just don't care to post correctly.

Edited December 31, 2010 by mcgyver210

[Fallguy]

I agree that plainly visible isn't new but the criminal offense is new as far as I remember. So Plainly visible is vague with no size etc & you or I could be charged & convicted just because someones definition of plainly visible isn't ours.

Too Small to see at the bottom of the door isn't plainly visible to me but if I see it I will then make a choice as to if I really need to enter that establishment or can go to a different business. I actually wish we had something more uniform since it is a criminal act to pass one now but we don't so now I am forced to look all over the entrance for a plainly visible sign that could look like anything & actually blend into the glass or other material because I am a law abiding citizen that has chosen to follow the rules as unfair as they are.

Oh & I also agree with most of what you said good comments but remember the new criminal part of the law is very new & hasn't been tested or even had enough time to be tested.

Well actually it's always been a criminal offense (punishable by $500 fine only) to violate 39-17-1359 as well. The only thing that is really new is that a "Circle and Slash" aka "Gun Buster" sign alone is a legal posting. Prior to the new law the symbol had to be used along with the proper wording to be legal.

Overall I don't disagree that standard size/location/etc... would be good. It's just that if they mess with it much more, especially this soon....some of the changes may not be good. (Just like many feel the change of making the "Gun Buster" symbol a legal posting wasn't good.)

[Guest mcgyver210]

Well actually it's always been a criminal offense (punishable by $500 fine only) to violate 39-17-1359 as well. The only thing that is really new is that a "Circle and Slash" aka "Gun Buster" sign alone is a legal posting. Prior to the new law the symbol had to be used along with the proper wording to be legal.

Overall I don't disagree that standard size/location/etc... would be good. It's just that if they mess with it much more, especially this soon....some of the changes may not be good. (Just like many feel the change of making the "Gun Buster" symbol a legal posting wasn't good.)

Interesting & I didn't know everything you quoted Thanks

As for the Gun Buster sign I actually am in the minority I guess but I think it is OK since it makes it very clear HCP holders are not welcome without needing to make sure we read every word on a written words only sign.

It is easier for me to spot a visual sign.

[Oh Shoot]

Well actually it's always been a criminal offense (punishable by $500 fine only) to violate 39-17-1359 as well....

Well, small nit: former statute said "not more than $500", now the $500 is mandated, no leeway for judge on amount.

I can't remember what the penalty for carrying in place that sold alcohol was.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Well, small nit: former statute said "not more than $500", now the $500 is mandated, no leeway for judge on amount.

I can't remember what the penalty for carrying in place that sold alcohol was.

- OS

LOL..ok, but either way it was still (and always has been) a criminal offense. We also now know it is a Class B misdemeanor, before we always just assumed that based on the fine.

As far as 39-17-1305 before it was repealed, violation was a Class A misdemeanor, which can carry a jail sentence up to 11 months, 29 days.