• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

AMC Theaters

Status
Not open for further replies.

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
Please send an email, I did!

AMC Theatres Blocks Gun
Carry

The original idea of the Gun Talk Truth Squad was to bring
together a few people who would take action by writing, calling, and otherwise
contacting media, companies and elected officials on gun issues. I had hoped to
get 100 volunteers. We now number more than 30,000!
So, here's one I think is worthwhile. As you
know, Starbucks has taken a neutral stance on firearms -- neither
pro nor anti. Its position is that whatever is legal in that state or city is
okay with them. As a result, thousands of us spent money at Starbucks stores across the country on Valentine's day as a
counter to the boycott proposed by anti-rights groups trying to force the coffee company into
blocking your legal carrying into the stores.
It's time to turn our attention to a major
company which blocks legal gun carriers from their facilities (but the criminals
will continue to carry there, of course). AMC
Theatres is the second largest chain of movie houses in the U.S..
It also blocks women and men who legally carry firearms for the protection of
themselves and others.
This comment is from the form response AMC
Theatres offers when asked about it:
"For the safety and security of our
guests and associates, and as a family business, AMC feels the best way to
protect our guests and associates is to have a uniform, standardized policy
prohibiting weapons on our premises, and to post such policy. (In many states,
we are required by law to post signage if we have a policy against bringing
weapons on our property, hence the posting of signage at our theatres
nationwide.)"

I've long said that we need to address those companies
who make their places more dangerous by restricting firearms carry to the
criminals. It's only fair that we let a company know when we are not going to
spend money with it, and tell it why.
May I suggest that you politely let AMC Theatres know if you will not be going to the
movies at their places, and that you continue to offer to return to their
theatres when they remove the restriction on LEGAL firearms. If they want to
post signs saying that ILLEGAL guns are prohibited, they are free to. Of course,
that won't keep out the criminals any more than the current signs do, but at
least it won't keep the law-abiding citizens out.
The email
address for AMC Theatres is
AMCGuestServices@amctheatres.com.
 

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
My email:

I recently was taken aback by the sight of the "No Weapons" sign on the doors of one of your theaters in Kansas City at Strang Line, the AMC 30.



As an AMERICAN and VETERAN who has defended our second amendment rights to "bear ams", I am appalled at the idea that the management of your company would believe that criminals would take notice of or heed such signage. After all, criminals do what they want. As a person who is always armed when possible, I find this untolerable. I am an avid movie fan, a Stubs member and I watch 2 to 4 movies a month. Looks like I will have to find another place to watch movies. Yes, I dislike that very much. But my second amendment right means that much to me.



Thanks for ruining one of my favorite hobbies...



I will be very happy to consider patronizing your business again if your policy should change. Until then, I suppose I need to examine my other options in KC.



Regards.
 

Boba Fett

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
206
Location
Fair Grove, Missouri
And here is mine. Sent it over breakfast.

To Whom it may Concern:

I recently learned that all AMC Theaters are required to post a sign stating that weapons are not allowed on your property. I amazed that you feel the need to do this in a nation that actually says in it's constitution that citizens have the right to bear arms. You realize that those who have no respect for the law will also have no respect for your signs, and the only persons who will disarm themselves are the everyday armed citizens who pose no threat to society.
Therefore, by posting these signs, you are effectively removing the only means of self defense from families. I am shocked that any company would do such a thing.
Since it is quite obvious that AMC Theaters has no regard for the safety of it's customers, I and everyone I can inform of this ridiculous policy will be sure to avoid your establishments and will take our legally-carried weapons and our money elsewhere. Should you ever decide to remove the signs and the "no-weapons" policy, I will be happy to again patronize your businesses.

Thanks...but no thanks,
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
I sent an email to Wehrenburg Theaters too. According to them, they have banned the carrying of firearms into their establishments for over 10 years. Funny, first time I saw their restriction was last week when I went to see Act of Valor.

In summary, they prohibit carrying because children may find a lost gun in the seat and may use it. :eek:

Remember, it's all about the chitlins!
 

ComSec

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
444
Location
Lees Summit, Missouri, USA
I'm currently sitting in Hunger Games is the Lees Summit theater not a AMC and have carried many times no problems yet, I stay away from AMC

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

Richieg150

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
432
Location
Show Me State
Went to Dickenson Theater in Lees Summit last night, carried with no issues at all......no posted weapon signage on the doors either....
 

lincomores

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Eastern Missouri
May I suggest that you politely let AMC Theatres know if you will not be going to the
movies at their places, and that you continue to offer to return to their
theatres when they remove the restriction on LEGAL firearms. If they want to
post signs saying that ILLEGAL guns are prohibited, they are free to. Of course,
that won't keep out the criminals any more than the current signs do, but at
least it won't keep the law-abiding citizens out.
The email
address for AMC Theatres is
AMCGuestServices@amctheatres.com.

I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...

WTH?

Your premise is flawed; the anit-gunners want to STOP/PREVENT you from exercising your constitutional right. OCrs just want to exercise their right. Boycotting because someone won't restrict someone elses right is the insane rationale. YMMV!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...
Cool, just like the 'CCW deters the criminsl element' argument.

Thug: "Hmm....I don't see a gat on that person."
Thug: "Yep, that person must be packing a gat under his jacket."

or

AMC: "Why is revenue down lately?"
AMC: "I don't know, maybe it's because we ban guns carried by law abiding patrons."
AMC: "Have we had complaints about the no gun policy?"
AMC: "Nope, no complaints, just a wild guess."
AMC: "You must be right, that must be the only explanation."
 

lincomores

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Eastern Missouri
Cool, just like the 'CCW deters the criminsl element' argument.

Thug: "Hmm....I don't see a gat on that person."
Thug: "Yep, that person must be packing a gat under his jacket."

or

AMC: "Why is revenue down lately?"
AMC: "I don't know, maybe it's because we ban guns carried by law abiding patrons."
AMC: "Have we had complaints about the no gun policy?"
AMC: "Nope, no complaints, just a wild guess."
AMC: "You must be right, that must be the only explanation."

My point is that it is no different than the political hacks of the left who despise liberty...a recent example is the attack of Media Matters against the advertisers of Rush Limbaugh's show.
A private business retains the right to make whatever legal policy they choose to cultivate a profit rich environment.
I'm just saying that if you don't like their policy, don't patronize their business.
But a concerted effort to "politically boycott" a private business because you disagree with their business decisions is nothing less than the political hacks the liberals employ.
Personally, I don't care if AMC, or any other business, knows why I don't patronize them. It is enough for me to just not do it...but, as I said, I'm not an activist.
I don't exercise my rights...I simply live them.
If you have a differing opinion, that is all fine and good. I'm not knocking you for it. I'm merely pointing out a different way to look at it.
 

lincomores

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Eastern Missouri
WTH?

Your premise is flawed; the anit-gunners want to STOP/PREVENT you from exercising your constitutional right. OCrs just want to exercise their right. Boycotting because someone won't restrict someone elses right is the insane rationale. YMMV!

My premise is flawed?
I don't think so.
As to the "insane rationale" you mention...I think the door swings both ways
As to AMC theaters...I've been armed every time I've been there.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
My premise is flawed?
I don't think so.
As to the "insane rationale" you mention...I think the door swings both ways
As to AMC theaters...I've been armed every time I've been there.

One promotes a legal right; the other doesn't......they are not equal, therefore, the door doesn't swing both ways...it has to be broken down to go the non-consitutional direction.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
my point is that it is no different than the political hacks of the left who despise liberty...a recent example is the attack of media matters against the advertisers of rush limbaugh's show.
A private business retains the right to make whatever legal policy they choose to cultivate a profit rich environment.
I'm just saying that if you don't like their policy, don't patronize their business.
But a concerted effort to "politically boycott" a private business because you disagree with their business decisions is nothing less than the political hacks the liberals employ.
Personally, i don't care if amc, or any other business, knows why i don't patronize them. It is enough for me to just not do it...but, as i said, i'm not an activist.
I don't exercise my rights...i simply live them.
If you have a differing opinion, that is all fine and good. I'm not knocking you for it. I'm merely pointing out a different way to look at it.
iok.
 

lincomores

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Eastern Missouri
One promotes a legal right; the other doesn't......they are not equal, therefore, the door doesn't swing both ways...it has to be broken down to go the non-consitutional direction.

Your methodology is penalizing a private business because they believe they are making decisions that best benefit their bottom line.
They are not denying you any right. You're speaking of private property.
So, whether it is pro or con, your methodology is what is wrong...that is the door that swings both ways.
anti guns are attempting to keep you from your free will right...they boycott to get the business to restrict what you want.
you are attempting to keep a business from their free will right...you boycott to get the business to grant what you want.

I just make my choice and don't meddle with their business decision.
Like I said, this is my personal take on it.
you have your own, and all is good.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...

Your methodology is penalizing a private business because they believe they are making decisions that best benefit their bottom line.
They are not denying you any right. You're speaking of private property.
So, whether it is pro or con, your methodology is what is wrong...that is the door that swings both ways.
anti guns are attempting to keep you from your free will right...they boycott to get the business to restrict what you want.
you are attempting to keep a business from their free will right...you boycott to get the business to grant what you want.

I just make my choice and don't meddle with their business decision.
Like I said, this is my personal take on it.
you have your own, and all is good.

NO, it isn't like the anti's. OK, the anti's are the ones denying my/your right to carry; they are politicizing the 2A by encouraging the business to prevent me/you/us from carrying on their property (which is fine, the property owner has that option) if a business owner doesn't like guns and want to ban them from their business...no sweat, but for them to follow the restriction based upon another group of people is the issue.

So it is the anti's that are trying to prevent me/you/us from carrying. Starbucks has made a decision to follow the laws of the state; the anti's are trying to tell them not too. This is why the door doesn't swing both ways.

Maybe look at advocating.
 

lincomores

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Eastern Missouri
NO, it isn't like the anti's. OK, the anti's are the ones denying my/your right to carry; they are politicizing the 2A by encouraging the business to prevent me/you/us from carrying on their property (which is fine, the property owner has that option) if a business owner doesn't like guns and want to ban them from their business...no sweat, but for them to follow the restriction based upon another group of people is the issue. So it is the anti's that are trying to prevent me/you/us from carrying. Starbucks has made a decision to follow the laws of the state; the anti's are trying to tell them not too. This is why the door doesn't swing both ways.

"Everyone" (both sides) politicize the 2nd amendment. It's a hot button topic that lines the pockets of politicians by lobbyists, lawyers by litigants, firearm manufacturers and retailers by consumers.
But the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be "politicized" by Patriots. We should simply live our inalienable rights.

Do you know, for certain, that AMC Theaters changed their policy due to the anti's?
Wouldn't it be the same thing if AMC Theaters decided to rescind their policy and once again allow firearms "based upon another group of people (2a's) ?
If it is wrong in the one sense, how is it not in the other...because AMC is not taking away your Constitutional right by banning firearms in their Theaters.
And my understanding of the position of Starbucks is not that they are "following" the Law, but rather have chosen to not interfere with an otherwise legal action. If a Starbucks were located in a Municipality where Open Carry was illegal...would they not comply with that? I mean, I could be wrong on this...I don't know, I'm asking a legitimate question.

Maybe look at advocating.

Me? To what purpose?
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
"Everyone" (both sides) politicize the 2nd amendment. It's a hot button topic that lines the pockets of politicians by lobbyists, lawyers by litigants, firearm manufacturers and retailers by consumers.
But the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be "politicized" by Patriots. We should simply live our inalienable rights.

Do you know, for certain, that AMC Theaters changed their policy due to the anti's?
Wouldn't it be the same thing if AMC Theaters decided to rescind their policy and once again allow firearms "based upon another group of people (2a's) ?
If it is wrong in the one sense, how is it not in the other...because AMC is not taking away your Constitutional right by banning firearms in their Theaters.


Have no idea what AMC has done. My remarks are to Starbucks. I do know Werhenburger Theaters restrict it because of the children; they're afraid a child my find a lost gun.



And my understanding of the position of Starbucks is not that they are "following" the Law, but rather have chosen to not interfere with an otherwise legal action. If a Starbucks were located in a Municipality where Open Carry was illegal...would they not comply with that? I mean, I could be wrong on this...I don't know, I'm asking a legitimate question.



Me? To what purpose?

Starbucks has chosen to 'follow' the local laws; not follow the anti's.

Do you not want to promote OC?
 

lincomores

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Eastern Missouri
Starbucks has chosen to 'follow' the local laws; not follow the anti's.

I suppose it's just semantics...I would ask, "What local law is Starbucks actually following?" That is why I said, they are merely not opposing (or interfering with) and otherwise legal action, namely to open carry.
There is no law that says Starbucks must, or must not, allow open carry on their private property.

Do you not want to promote OC?

Define, "promote OC."
The 2a is about keeping and bearing arms.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top