• 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.

Regal Entertainment Group

lastblack80

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
1
Location
Washington
I have been to the same Regal Theatre four times now and have open carried every time. Here in Washington only private businesses can ask you to leave i.e. mom and pop shops. Any place that is considered a major corporation like starbucks can't keep you from coming in.

Well just after the trailers of tonights movie I was approached and asked if I was carrying a weapon. I said yes I was, and the gentleman (some supervisor) told me I was breaking the law and could not carry in a theatre. I chuckled and told him there was no such law in Washington and that he should read the RCW (Revised Code of Washington). He then tried the whole "well this is private property", which I then told him that it wasn't and that if this was regal's rule they should post it. He said it was posted and took me out to the lobby to see it.

On a very small rules panel in the corner of the lobby was a 1 inch by 3 inch paragraph stating the weapons where not permitted in the theater. I told him and the manager (once she arrived) that this small little paragraph posted in the corner doesn't make it a law.

They called 911, I called the non-Emergancy line and told them that they were about to get a call on me and that I was breaking no law, that my weapon was holstered, and that I would be outside in front of the building waiting for the officers. Last thing I needed was them rolling code to a "gunman at a theatre".

When the officer arrived he was very friendly and even laughed about how ignorant the employees of regal were being. He said that I was breaking no law and that yes in fact they could not keep me from entering but they could refuse me service. I laughed and said thats fine, but I was still upset that my rights were being taken away from me due to their fear and ignorance. He did have to ask for my weapon while he talked to the manager. After that he then asked me to leave, and this is were it got REALLY stupid.

Because there were five employees standing around me in a circle (trying to intimidate me I guess) when the officer arrived at the scene it was now perceived as a public threat and/or endangerment. And because I was the one with a firearm, I was the threat. So I was told I had to leave or go place my weapon in my vehicle if I wanted to watch the movie (yeah the one that had started playing 20 mins ago). I was shocked. I was the one being persecuted and I never did anything wrong. During the time I was standing alone and the officer talked to the regal employees a group of people approached me and shook my hand and thanked me for standing up and protecting our rights and being willing to protect movie goers.

Now doesn't that beat all. The theatre company doesn't want to be the next victim of some crazy guy so their knee jerk reaction is to ban all firearms from their buildings. Instead of letting law abiding citizens put themselves on the line and openly carry.

The officer told me "next time just conceal it" which is fine but why can't I openly carry? Is the public so scared that the sight of any gun(except for police officers) causes a panic? Or is the public just happy in their ignorance and shocked when something bad happens?

At the end the officer told the manager that in fact I could carry there and that because they had caused a scene I was leaving. It felt good to know the cop understood the situation and he even said he would do the same after all this craziness has been going on, just concealed.

Wake up America, a stupid uneducated people are no better off then animals locked up in cages. Know your rights, read the laws that you vote on. And for God's sake learn that if you really want peace of mind and the secure feeling, you have to be willing and able to defend yourself and your rights.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
Welcome to the forum,
- First, I'll note that the manager was not correct, it is perfectly legal... however... private property is exactly that, and who own it is of no consequence. So in other words, there is no legal difference between a mom and pop, and a cooperation or large establishment. By refusing to leave when asked, you could face criminal trespassing charges (nothing to do with having the firearm). regardless of it being a firearm, or a t-shirt with Micky mouse, if the establishment doesn't want it there, then they have constitutional rights much like you and I. To be in line with supporting constitutional strength, we should respect and support those rights. The right way to fight it and make a change is to empower people around you to write and support the position we stand on, and encourage changes in their policy. Unfortunately the officer was not exactly correct either, they can prevent anyone from entering for any reason short of color race creed or sexual orientation. clothing, firearms and snack food, or just because they dont like one of us is fair game.

Read up through the WA forum section, there are some great peeps there with some excellent info. It's good to know your in the right before standing your ground.. it suck to find out the hard way if your wrong.

Take care, and welcome again.

Bat :dude:
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
That's one of the best-written first posts I've ever seen, lastblack80!

And you're absolutely right about depriving honest, law-abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms for self defense: It's insane.

Thing of it is, we've worked through the logic, so we understand what's going on quite well. Far to many people, however, haven't. As a result, they instead believe an ideal, one that's not very ideal, but one that gives them a false sense of security.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
To be honest, i did NOT go see Batman in the theaters.... not because I was scared, but because i was disgusted the theaters and media for their handling of the aftermath. I Understand the sheeple get scared, and yes i support their rights as private property... but they took it all way to far. I was also very disheartened with the public acceptance of being searched to go to a movie, damn sad- We in old `39 Germany or something? ...
- I agree with how your feeling too, and yes, i wish establishments open to the public didn't have the ability to discriminate against gun carriers... but until then, we have to be on our toes.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I did, my new theater has no gun buster signs. Neither a non-legal gun with a slash through nor the legally binding 30.06 sign.
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
I have been to the same Regal Theatre four times now and have open carried every time. Here in Washington only private businesses can ask you to leave i.e. mom and pop shops. Any place that is considered a major corporation like starbucks can't keep you from coming in.

Cite please. I've never heard of such a distinction regarding who can trespass you, in any state.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Cite please. I've never heard of such a distinction regarding who can trespass you, in any state.

For WI:

Section 80. 943.13 (1m) (c) of the statutes is created to read:
943.13 (1m) (c) 1. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a residence that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the residence, if he or she has not leased it to another person, or the occupant of the residence has notified the actor not to enter or remain at the residence while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. In this subdivision, "residence," with respect to a single-family residence, includes the residence building and the parcel of land upon which the residence building is located, and "residence," with respect to a residence that is not a single-family residence, does not include any common area of the building in which the residence is located or any common areas of the rest of the parcel of land upon which the residence building is located.
1m. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in a common area in a building, or on the grounds of a building, that is a residence that is not a single-family residence if the actor does not own the residence or does not occupy any part of the residence, if the owner of the residence has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the common area or on the grounds while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a part of the grounds of the building if that part is used for parking and the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in that part.
2. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any part of a nonresidential building, grounds of a nonresidential building, or land that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the building, grounds, or land, if that part of the building, grounds, or land has not been leased to another person, or the occupant of that part of the building, grounds, or land has notified the actor not to enter or remain in that part of the building, grounds, or land while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental unit, to a privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college, or to the grounds of or land owned or occupied by a university of college, or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of a building, grounds, or land used as a parking facility.
3. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a special event if the organizers of the special event have notified the actor not to enter or remain at the special event while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the special event grounds or building used as a parking facility.
4. Enters or remains in any part of a building that is owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit, excluding any building or portion of a building under s. 175.60 (16) (a), if the state or local governmental unit has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a person who leases residential or business premises in the building or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the building used as a parking facility.
5. Enters or remains in any privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college, if the university or college has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a person who leases residential or business premises in the building or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the building used as a parking facility.
Section 81. 943.13 (2) of the statutes is renumbered 943.13 (2) (am), and 943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) and 1., as renumbered, are amended to read:
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant within the meaning of sub. (1m) (b), (e) or (f) if he or she has been notified personally, either orally or in writing, or if the land is posted. Land is considered to be posted under this subsection paragraph under either of the following procedures:
1. If a sign at least 11 inches square is placed in at least 2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected. The sign must carry provide an appropriate notice and the name of the person giving the notice followed by the word "owner" if the person giving the notice is the holder of legal title to the land and by the word "occupant" if the person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but is a lawful occupant of the land. Proof that appropriate signs as provided in this paragraph subdivision were erected or in existence upon the premises to be protected prior to the event complained of shall be prima facie proof that the premises to be protected were posted as provided in this paragraph subdivision.
Section 82. 943.13 (2) (bm) of the statutes is created to read:
943.13 (2) (bm) 1. In this paragraph, "sign" means a sign that states a restriction imposed under subd. 2. that is at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
2. a. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 1m., an owner of a residence that is not a single-family residence has notified an individual not to enter or remain in a part of that building, or on the grounds of that building, while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the owner has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies or near all probable access points to the grounds to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building or the grounds can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
am. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., 4., and 5., an owner or occupant of a part of a nonresidential building, the state or a local governmental unit, or a university or a college has notified an individual not to enter or remain in a part of the building while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the owner, occupant, state, local governmental unit, university, or college has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
b. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., an owner or occupant of the grounds of a nonresidential building or of land has notified an individual not to enter or remain on the grounds or land while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the owner or occupant has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all probable access points to the grounds or land to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the grounds or land can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
c. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 3., the organizers of the special event have notified an individual not to enter or remain at the special event while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the organizers have posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the special event and any individual attending the special event can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
For WI:

Section 80. 943.13 (1m) (c) of the statutes is created to read:
<snip>

I should have specified that I've never heard of or read a distinction between the abilities of a small business and a large business to trespass someone. I only see differences for residential, multi-family residential, university, etc. in the Wisconsin statute. I could be missing something in the wall-o-text, but that WI statute doesn't appear to distinguish between a "small" business and a "large" business/corporation, as the OP claims is the case in Washington.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
The method I use when wanting to carry into a business where I "suspect" there may be a sign is to do what Philip Van Cleave suggests.

  • If there is no obvious or prominent sign in full and clear view, don't go looking for one.
  • Don't ask an employee or manager, or call ahead to ask, if they have a no-gun policy or if they do have a sign.
  • Enter as anyone else would, and look and act as any other patron would look and act.
  • Conceal your sidearm.

The point is, if it is not prominent, it ain't there. And if you ask about it, you may very well give them the idea to either place a sign or make whatever sign they have prominent. The don't ask, don't tell concept works best with this.

On the other hand, if they do have a visible sign, do not go into their business armed. Take your business elsewhere. It might be a good idea to let them know why you are not going to be spending your money there or better yet, mail the owner/manager a copy of a receipt from a competitor along with you explanation.
 
Last edited:

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
Cite please. I've never heard of such a distinction regarding who can trespass you, in any state.

The cite does not exist in WA. The OP is incorrect in his understanding of Private Property rights.

lastblack80, first welcome to the forum. I would recommend that you check the Washington sub-forum stickies for common questions in regards to carry in Washington state. You should also brush up on Private Property Rights. Unfortunately, your understanding of the private property rights is not correct. Property not owned by the government is private property with an owner (even chain outlets) and as such the property owner holds rights. Among those rights are the right to eject or exclude an individual for any reason other than a protected class. So while there is no law in WA that makes it illegal to carry a firearm in a theater, there is a law 'trespass' which you can be in violation of for not leaving when an agent of the property demands you to be removed.

RCW 9A.52.080 - Trespass
 
Top