[Cadet Higham]

This is a copy of a post from the Open Carry forums... with an update at the end.

On the 31st of May, my wife and I went on a double date with a couple of friends and we went out to dinner at Olive Garden and then to a movie at the Carmike Ritz 15. After dinner, my friend's date finally realized that I was carrying and asked the usual questions. She didn't seem to interested, but wasn't objectionable to the idea of normal people carrying firearms.

We talked for a little while and then went to see a movie at the Carmike 12. When we got there, they told us that the movie had already started, but at the 15 across town, there was another showing of the same movie that we would be able to catch. (A little background: I generally avoid going to the Carmike 15 as I used to work there a long time ago, and my brother still works there) But we agreed that was the best course and went to the 15. After purchasing our tickets, I was talking to the General Manager and one of the Security personnel, who didn't say anything about my firearm. After getting into the theater and sitting down, that same security guard walked up to me and we had the following conversation

Security: "Excuse me, are you carrying a piece."

Me: "Yes, sir. I am."

Security: "You can't do that."

Me: "I am fully within the law by carrying a firearm openly."

Security: "But this is private property."

Me: "I didn't see any 'No Firearms' signs and neither you or the General Manager previously indicated that this was a problem."

Security: "It's scaring our customers."

Me: "I understand that many people feel skiddish around weapons. I carry for my protection, the protection of my family, and everyone around me, regardless if they're skiddish around guns or not."

Security: "Well we received a complaint from a man and his son who saw you in the bathroom with it."

Me: "I haven't gone into your restrooms tonight."

Security: "But it's against our company policy. Will you leave your weapon in your vehicle."

Me: "It doesn't do anybody any good in the car. If I were to leave it there, would you take responsibility if it was stolen."

Security: "No..."

Me: "I guarantee you that the safest place for this firearm is where it is right now."

Security: "Then I'm going to have to ask you to leave."

Me: "Very well, I will comply. Please expect a formal complaint to be delivered to Carmike Cinemas, as well as a request for a clarification of their policies."

I haven't heard anything back from Carmike Cinemas, and have sent three messages since the incident.
I sent this message a few minutes ago:

"I have previously used this form to try and attain Carmike Cinema's policy regarding patrons carrying firearms. I sent a message on the 31st of May and have never received any correspondence back. I am remorseful that this had to happen, but I will NEVER again patronize a Carmike Cinemas theater because of the negative attention I received about my lawful actions and behavior from one of your security guards, and the lack of response from anybody from your Company regarding this matter. I will also extend this notice to members of Utah's Open and Concealed Carry forums (http://www.opencarry.org and http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com respectively) and invite them to join in this motion as well."

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Please post a link to the source...
Thanks!

 

[Cadet Higham]

This is the link to the discussion on OpenCarry.org: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=11761&forum_id=52&jump_to=217396#p217396

UPDATE:

I received the following email on Saturday night:

"DAVE HIGHAM THIS IS XXXXXX’S BOSS JEFF. XXXXXX TELLS ME THAT CORPERATE HAS YET TO GET BACK TO YOU, AND WITH THAT I APOLOGIZE IN THE COMPANIES BEHALF, BUT I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION FOR YOU ON THE SUBJECT. I SPOKE WITH SCOTT DUNAWAY ( IF YOU REMEMBER HE IS THE DISTRICT MANAGER) ANYWAYS HE INFORMS ME THAT THE COMPANY DOESN’T REALLY HAVE A POLICY ABOUT CARRYING A FIREARM ON THE PERSON IF IT IS OKAY OR NOT, THE COMPANY REALLY DOES NOT PUT TO MUCH CARE INTO THE SUBJECT, ONLY IF IT IS IN THE OPEN THEN WE WILL ASK THE PATRON TO PLEASE COVER UP THE FIREARM SO THAT OTHERS ARE NOT SO AFRAID OR CONCERNED THAT THEY WILL UP AND LEAVE. BECAUSE OF COURSE WE WANT TO KEEP THE MONEY NOT GIVE IT BACK , SO WE’LL ASK THAT THE FIREARM GETS COVERED OR IF THE PATRON DOES NOT WANT TO COMPLY THEN WE WILL ASK OTHER THINGS SUCH AS TAKE THE WEAPON TO THE VEHICLE OR COME BACK WHEN THEY WANT TO ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES. I’M SORRY FOR WHATEVER HAPPENED THE TIME YOU WHERE HERE AND THE SECURITY OFFICER AT THE TIME SAID OR DID, BUT XXXXXX TELLS ME YOU ARE NOT TO HAPPY, AND THIS IS WHERE THE EMAIL COMES FROM. SO PLEASE EXCEPT MY APOLOGIZES AND NEXT TIME YOUR NEXT VISIT EITHER STOPPING BY TO SAY HI OR COMING TO SEE A MOVIE WITH YOUR WIFE, KNOW THAT WE TRY TO PLEASE ALL THE GREAT CUSTOMERS THAT COME IN AND THAT WE DID NOT SINGLE YOU OUT FOR THE FIREARM ON YOUR SIDE.

----------JEFF FINLAYSON, GM
HOLLYWOOD CONNECTIONS RITZ 15"

This is in response to the complaint I made to my brother (who works there as a manager). I have yet to hear anything back from the corporate office.

 

[m&p40]

I find it quite Ironic that he states you were NOT singled out because of your firearm in one statement, but says the reason you were asked to leave was because of your firearm. If people would quit being so wishy washy about their feelings and trying to appease EVERYONE like the democratic nominee is trying to be in regards to the rpesidentail election, I think there would be a lot more places that would allow open carry. Its unfortunate that we have to pander to a few whiny people! What if I complained that not enough people were open carrying? Are they going to do something about that? NO! Too bad for your bad experience.

 

[divegeek]

I think that letter truly captures how most retail establishments think about firearms. They don't care, don't want to care, really don't want to have to deal with it at all. The only reason they bother is because other patrons bug them about it, and expect them to take action. So, from their perspective, they're caught in the middle between hoplophiles and hoplophobes. They can't satisfy both, and there are more of the latter, so they choose to annoy the smaller number who insist on carrying and won't (or can't) conceal.

This is why I would support a law requiring owners of publicly-accessible property to allow firearms. It would solve the property owners' problem, because the gun-fearing members of the public could just be told "Sorry, sir, but the law says that it's his right to carry it, and I can't do anything about it. If I kicked him out, he could sue me for discrimination." After a little of that, people would stop asking, and eventually get somewhat used to the idea.

However, there's no way such a law could be passed. All anti-gunners would oppose it, most everyone in the middle of the road on gun control would oppose it, on the grounds that property rights should trump, and even a fair number of pro-gunners would agree with them.

 

[Guest]

"We don't serve their kind here!"

"What?"

"Your guns. They'll have to wait outside."

"Hey, why don't you guys wait outside. We don't want any trouble."

"I heartily agree, sir."

 

[Jeff Johnson]

"We don't serve their kind here!"

"What?"

"Your guns. They'll have to wait outside."

"Hey, why don't you guys wait outside. We don't want any trouble."

"I heartily agree, sir."

Yes, Luke!

 

[Guest]

Property owners should not be REQUIRED to allow activities (OC or CC) they do not desire. Like any other right, they can restrict your right to bear arms. Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution, but that doesn't mean you can stand in the middle of their store holding a sign about whatever you feel the need to say. Freedom of the press is protected by the constitution, but a news crew will very probably be turned away at the door.

Instead of trying to pass a "we override your private property rights" type of law, which IMO has no chance of passing, why not work on a law that says a private property owner is free to prohibit OC or CC, but are liable for any citizens who are harmed (at the hands of a criminal) because they were forced to be unarmed? You're not taking away their rights - they still have a choice. In fact, the law could go a step further and shield them from liability should a patron have an accidental discharge or a criminal start shooting. Far more likely to pass, and the end result is the same - most if not all liability insurance companies will quickly avoid any additional legislated liability, and will quickly endorse any additional legislated exemptions from liability.

This would also effectively eliminate most employer policies prohibiting firearms because their lawyers would likely come to the same conclusion.

 

[bane]

Property owners should not be REQUIRED to allow activities (OC or CC) they do not desire. Like any other right, they can restrict your right to bear arms. Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution, but that doesn't mean you can stand in the middle of their store holding a sign about whatever you feel the need to say.

Actually that's not what the courts have ruled. Fairly recent case law in both LV as well as right here in the 3rd District have ruled that private property which has been opened for use by the GENERAL PUBLIC is a lot more like public property than private and the owner's can't just deny you your right to free speech. Sure, you have to use it responsibly... like you can't run around screaming about fires and such... but they can't deny you your right to a legitimate and reasonable expression of ideas. The caveat to that is that you can't be unduly interfering with the owner's ability to conduct business.

In regards to 2A rights, though it hasn't been challenged yet, the same logic applies... a person carrying peacefully would fit pretty well under that same ruling.

Since when did BUSINESS RIGHTS (which are NOT the same thing as PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS) trump INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS??? Next thing you know we'll be arguing that business owners have the right to deny blacks, mormons, and women from coming on their property.

 

[divegeek]

Since when did BUSINESS RIGHTS (which are NOT the same thing as PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS) trump INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS??? Next thing you know we'll be arguing that business owners have the right to deny blacks, mormons, and women from coming on their property.

Depends on your perspective.

I agree with you, bane, but there are certainly people around (including on this forum) who think that property owners SHOULD be able to refuse to serve blacks, Mormons or women if they want to.

Philosophically, it comes down to a debate about which rights are most important, which depends on where you think rights come from. Some people take the view that all rights (including individual rights) arise from property rights, and draw no distinction between the rights of a business and the rights of an individual. I don't like the logical conclusions of that position, so I prefer the idea that individual rights are inherent and property rights arise from them, which easily allows the kind of distinctions you're drawing.

 

[bane]

Since when did BUSINESS RIGHTS (which are NOT the same thing as PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS) trump INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS??? Next thing you know we'll be arguing that business owners have the right to deny blacks, mormons, and women from coming on their property.

Depends on your perspective.

I agree with you, bane, but there are certainly people around (including on this forum) who think that property owners SHOULD be able to refuse to serve blacks, Mormons or women if they want to.

Philosophically, it comes down to a debate about which rights are most important, which depends on where you think rights come from. Some people take the view that all rights (including individual rights) arise from property rights, and draw no distinction between the rights of a business and the rights of an individual. I don't like the logical conclusions of that position, so I prefer the idea that individual rights are inherent and property rights arise from them, which easily allows the kind of distinctions you're drawing.

I agree with you -- which is why I argued that point. I argued against the other side of the coin b/c I believe it to be fallacious. But I understand others think differently.

What I don't understand is this... by that thinking (that Property Rights trump all), couldn't the citizen of a city/state/other area collectively purchase up all the land and, once acquired, discriminate against those who believe in the "Property Rights trump all doctrine" and effectively legislate these people into a corner where they are not allowed to live, work, or even breathe anywhere within that collective??? And by extension, couldn't the entire nation do that to them, theoretically??? Seems like a very dangerous philosophy to be subscribing to... sounds highly Fascist to me.

 

[apollosmith]

Property owners should not be REQUIRED to allow activities (OC or CC) they do not desire. Like any other right, they can restrict your right to bear arms.

Excellent first post! Welcome aboard! Be sure to introduce yourself.

There's a fine balance here. A store can refuse business for MOST anything - but they can't turn me away because of my religion, race, or because I'm in a wheelchair. Some civil rights are clearly protected on private property that is accessible to the public.

Instead of trying to pass a "we override your private property rights" type of law, which IMO has no chance of passing, why not work on a law that says a private property owner is free to prohibit OC or CC, but are liable for any citizens who are harmed (at the hands of a criminal) because they were forced to be unarmed? You're not taking away their rights - they still have a choice. In fact, the law could go a step further and shield them from liability should a patron have an accidental discharge or a criminal start shooting. Far more likely to pass, and the end result is the same - most if not all liability insurance companies will quickly avoid any additional legislated liability, and will quickly endorse any additional legislated exemptions from liability.

YES!!! If companies simply changed their policies to "No ILLEGAL Guns", they would be protected from almost all liability. The American's with Disabilities Act is structured very closely to what you describe. It is intended to provide legal protections to businesses that make themselves accessible. If a business does not build a wheelchair ramp, the business becomes legally liable for any civil rights lawsuit the public were to bring against it - and the courts have made it very clear they will not tolerate discrimination based on disability.

 

[eddified]

I like this forum. It wasn't till I joined this forum that I learned about how corporate property open to public access really is VERY different than private property owned by an individual. Once I realized that PEOPLE have rights and that [business name here] is not a person, rather a legal FICTION, it became clear to me that corporate property "rights" (which really aren't rights at all) really should give in when it clashes with an individual's right to self-defense. The reason I suggest that corporate "rights" are just privileges, is that a corporation (or any other type of legal FICTION aka business entity) is a statutory entity of the state (not owned by the state, but created by and allowed to exist by, the state)! And guess what --- a state (govt) merely exists to protect the rights of its citizens--or so the theory goes, here in America. So if you think about it, corporations (and other legal entities), since they are subject to the state (vs the state being subject to the PEOPLE), should clearly have no rights, but instead, privileges.

 

[divegeek]

corporate property open to public access really is VERY different than private property owned by an individual.

What about private property owned by an individual that is open to the public? A privately-owned business.

It's not the corporate ownership that makes the rules different, it's the fact that the public is invited to enter at will. That makes it a "public accommodation", and that means that discrimination on certain bases is not allowed. If I'm running a small business, and I own the whole thing, but I keep my door locked, don't advertise and only take customers that I invite, then I can choose to serve only whites, or whatever. If I unlock the door, put an "open" sign on the front, advertise, etc. -- generally make clear that I'm inviting the public to come in and do business with me -- then I cannot legally discriminate.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

...why not work on a law that says a private property owner is free to prohibit OC or CC, but are liable for any citizens who are harmed (at the hands of a criminal) because they were forced to be unarmed? You're not taking away their rights - they still have a choice. In fact, the law could go a step further and shield them from liability should a patron have an accidental discharge or a criminal start shooting.
...

I think that there is merit in this approach, though I would not want it in the statutes that stores could post against firearm carry and back it with the weight of law, like exists in many states.

I would definitely be in favor of a statute that would shield store owners from liability for allowing firearm-carry on their property and would make them liable for the death or injury to employees or patrons who were prevented from exercising self-defense by the property owner's policies.

Welcome to our forum, timf343. I'm glad you found us, but please follow the forum rules and post an introductory thread in the Introduce Yourself forum.

 

[eddified]

What about private property owned by an individual that is open to the public? A privately-owned business.

I carefully avoided that kind of property in my rant

 

[eddified]

It's not the corporate ownership that makes the rules different, it's the fact that the public is invited to enter at will.

Yeah.... I was just philosophizing. I should have warned that I don't really know much about the issue, and was mainly just thinking out loud, etc. I was speaking more along the lines of "this is how it should be" than "this is how it is".

So basically it was just my opinion......

 

[bane]

then I can choose to serve only whites, or whatever

Not to be a butt-head... but are you SURE about that??? I'm not. Something tells me that if one of the "private clubs for members only" here in SLC decided to, for example, deny entry to any but whites they would have an awfully big problem on their hands. By way of another example... the largest "private club for members only" does choose who enters *VERY* selectively but they don't base their choice on race, sex, or age. I know it's a bit cheeky to talk about the Church in this light but they ARE a Corporation and the temple IS a "private club for members" -- and we all know if they denied based on race, sex, or age, they would have a HUGE problem on their hands -- even though they have the ADDITIONAL protection of a religion that a regular business does not have.

I'm not sure a business, of any kind, can legally discriminate, regardless of how "private" is is kept. Think Costco -- could they bar all Mormons from being members? I doubt it.

 

[divegeek]

then I can choose to serve only whites, or whatever

Not to be a butt-head... but are you SURE about that??? I'm not. Something tells me that if one of the "private clubs for members only" here in SLC decided to, for example, deny entry to any but whites they would have an awfully big problem on their hands.

Pretty sure, under the assumptions I mentioned which are that the business in question is so exclusive it's truly by unsolicited invitation only. Lawsuits trying to force fraternities, social clubs, etc. to accept all people have failed. The Boy Scouts of America has been sued many times because they don't allow girls as members or avowed homosexuals or atheists as members or leaders, but they've won every time.

The right to freely associate with whoever you will is a pretty fundamental human right (and one protected by the constitution), and there's no reason to deprecate that right merely because part of the association involves a monetary transaction. Courts have decided that it is reasonable to deny normal businesses the right to discriminate on certain bases, on the grounds that they've voluntarily chosen to do business with the public at large and that society has a compelling interest to reduce discrimination against certain classes of people.

In the case of the private clubs in SLC, I'm pretty sure the fact that they advertise, have signs and storefronts that invite the public, etc., would cause the courts to find that they are public accommodations and therefore can't discriminate.

 

[Rugerlover]

Personally I think Utah should adopt some form of the Texas 30.06 law, wherein a business must post a state approved sign on the door of the establishment prohibiting concealed or open carry, otherwise they have to allow it. Failure to obey a 30.06 sign in Texas is a pretty severe crime. It would take all the guesswork and capriciousness of local personnel out of the picture.