Removed from Wehrenberg Theater in Arnold MO

The Arnold 14 Cine in Arnold MO.

My wife and I decided to see the new Schwartzenegger film "The Last Stand" because we regularly enjoy fast action, gun slinging, testosterone filled movies. I was wearing a T-shirt with a black hoody (unzipped) over my shoulder holster than holds my P92.

After purchasing our tickets we proceeded to the main entrance and gave our tickets over to the attendant however before going in the theater, we decided to get a soda at the snack counter.

As the cashier rang up my purchase, I pulled out my money and raised my arm up to hand it to him. ( The snack counter is higher than the main floor)

As I handed him the money, raising my arm a bit higher than my shoulder up to the cashier, my hoody slightly opened just enough for my firearm to be visible, catching the eye of the cashier.

He said nothing. Handed me my soda and we proceeded into the theater. As we settled into our seats my wife quietly tells me that she thinks the cashier had glanced down at my firearm that became briefly visible.

We shrugged it off as he had said nothing and waited for the movie to start.

We were in the theater itself for roughly 20 minutes before 2 police officers walk into the theater and begin to approach me.

The officer reaches my seat and quietly asks me to step out of the theater for a moment.

I agree and instantly know exactly what it was about and so did my wife.

My wife remained in her seat and stayed in the theater as I calmly follow the officers out.

As soon as we exit the theater he stops and turns to me with a very concerned expression and asks" Are you armed, sir?"

"Yes I am." I replied. "Do you have some kind of endorsement?" He then asked.

"I hold a CCW, yes." I calmly replied trying to avoid getting aggravated.

The officer seemed to immediately be relieved and seemed to lose interest in his pursuit but seemed reluctant as he questioned me further.

At this time 2 company managers walk up with their arms crossed as if they were slightly scared.

The officer asks me for my CCW license and i comply. He actually radios it in.... Which is a first for an officer to do for me.

I was thinking... "what? does he think its fake?? This is ridiculous..."

The female dispatch verifies my ccw and the officer returns it to me. The officer turns to the managers who then tell me there are no weapons allowed.

"I didnt see a sign." I reply.

They argue and assure me one exists at the front.

The officer then tells me that they are willing to let me stay if I disarm and leave the weapon in the vehicle.

I decline and request for my money to be returned.

They agree and walk back to the front. The officer then says to me "Just to let you know, most public places dont allow firearms."

"Thanks, but I'll take my chances because thats absolutely false." I reply.

The officer then seemed upset. "Whats with the attitude?"

I then explain that I feel im being treated like a criminal when in fact I would actually be instrumental in stopping potential crime that could happen in the theater.

The officer then seemed somewhat annoyed but ignored me.

I then ask to get my wife in which they agree. I walk back to grab my wife and we walk to the front where the managers refund our money.

After they refund our money, they say "By the way sir, here is the sign that indicates no weapons allowed."

I wanted to chew him out. It was on the opposite wall of the entrance. A small white sign BEHIND the customer service desk which lists long sentences of corporate policy in small print.

I calmly but sternly inform the manager that it legally needs to be posted correctly in the front and to comply with state guidelines.

My wife and I will no longer be patronizing this theater and for now on I will be keeping my hoody zipped up.

You contracted with the company and provided them consideration; they MUST complete their end of the bargain ... I would have refused to accept their money and sued them for breach on contract...

davidmcbeth said:

You contracted with the company and provided them consideration; they MUST complete their end of the bargain ... I would have refused to accept their money and sued them for breach on contract...

Click to expand...

Im not sure I follow.....

??

Jaysann22 said:

Im not sure I follow.....

??

Click to expand...

David wants to start a unination contest while standing downwind from the way things are in real life. Theoretically he has a point, but the contract was also voided on the OP's part (albeit unknowingly and therefore unintentionally). The contract is nulled out by the refund of money - which IMHO should have included the cost of refreshments whether consumed in part or in whole.

The OP could report the company for failure to comply with state notification/signage laws. They would they come into compliance and make life a bit less cumbersome for those that follow.

A comment - at the point that the cop has told you to choose between leaving or putting the gun up in the car, decise what to do and **** about whether the rest of the statte's merchants do or do not lurv to have folks come in carrying guns. "Yes, sir," "No, sir," and "Three bags full, sir" will keep the cop from running the "attitude" game into the awarding of stainless steel bracelets because he has them, knows how to use them, and can. Get his name and badge number and write Interenal Affairs and the Watch Commander/Chief of Police about his unprofessional behavior.

Other than that one point, you get a "Well Done".

stay safe.

davidmcbeth said:

You contracted with the company and provided them consideration; they MUST complete their end of the bargain ... I would have refused to accept their money and sued them for breach on contract...

Click to expand...

No, sorry. They have a right to ask you too leave.

FYI team, most theaters around the STL area are posted, rightfuly or not.

The theater chain B&B have no posted theaters, the owners are pro-2A!

There is a B&B theater in Wildwood. That's about the only thing pro-2A here.

mspgunner said:

No, sorry. They have a right to ask you too leave.

Click to expand...

True, as it should be.

FYI team, most theaters around the STL area are posted, rightfuly or not.

Click to expand...

Sad and unfortunate, but also true.

The theater chain B&B have no posted theaters, the owners are pro-2A!

There is a B&B theater in Wildwood. That's about the only thing pro-2A here.

Click to expand...

I've never heard of them. Do they have more than one location?

They have a one in Warrenton, Mo.

Jaysann22 said:

The Arnold 14 Cine in Arnold MO.

My wife and I decided to see the new Schwartzenegger film "The Last Stand" because we regularly enjoy fast action, gun slinging, testosterone filled movies. I was wearing a T-shirt with a black hoody (unzipped) over my shoulder holster than holds my P92.

<snip>

As soon as we exit the theater he stops and turns to me with a very concerned expression and asks" Are you armed, sir?"

"Yes I am." I replied. "Do you have some kind of endorsement?" He then asked.

"I hold a CCW, yes." I calmly replied trying to avoid getting aggravated.

The officer seemed to immediately be relieved and seemed to lose interest in his pursuit but seemed reluctant as he questioned me further.

At this time 2 company managers walk up with their arms crossed as if they were slightly scared.

The officer asks me for my CCW license and i comply. He actually radios it in.... Which is a first for an officer to do for me.

<snip>

Click to expand...

There is no contractual obligation other than to let you remain, if the business permits, for the duration of the movie you purchased tickets to see. The business "owners" could have refused admittance based on the hoodie alone. Signage or no signage.

The cop, well, he did not disarm you for his safety [good]. He got perturbed [not bad and not good], I surmise, because the you complained to the officer about the actions of the business owners. You allowed yourself to get aggravated and took it out on the cop. He was nothing but a messenger, sort of.

I think the cop did just enough to satisfy himself and mitigate a complaint from you, no disarming, and the signage may have not been present anywhere in or on the premisses. Also to mitigate a complaint from the business, by visibly calling in your endorsement. The endorsement check is a result of poor timing in my view. Gotta be seen doing something [not bad and not good].

Please consider not arguing with a cop regarding what the business did to tick you off. He don't care. Nor should he.

Is open carry legal in that town?

OC for ME said:

There is no contractual obligation other than to let you remain, if the business permits, for the duration of the movie you purchased tickets to see. The business "owners" could have refused admittance based on the hoodie alone. Signage or no signage.

The cop, well, he did not disarm you for his safety [good]. He got perturbed [not bad and not good], I surmise, because the you complained to the officer about the actions of the business owners. You allowed yourself to get aggravated and took it out on the cop. He was nothing but a messenger, sort of.

I think the cop did just enough to satisfy himself and mitigate a complaint from you, no disarming, and the signage may have not been present anywhere in or on the premisses. Also to mitigate a complaint from the business, by visibly calling in your endorsement. The endorsement check is a result of poor timing in my view. Gotta be seen doing something [not bad and not good].

Please consider not arguing with a cop regarding what the business did to tick you off. He don't care. Nor should he.

Click to expand...

The officer offered personal opinion as fact and was rightly called on it. A theater is not public property, it is private, which is why they were able to ask the OP to leave. Public property is where you don't need permission, since you are part of the public. The officer was also incorrect about the amount of private property being restricted, most is not. The officer seemed to be trying to discourage a citizen from lawful carry, by implying most won't allow it. He should be called on statements like that.

Leave`

Anyone can tell you to leave their property if they find out you are armed. Actually they can ask you to leave even if you are not armed, sign or no sign. You may ask any person to leave your home or property any time, firearm or no firearm. It is "private property rights". If not posted "no tresspassing" a person may be on your property, if posted, they are tresspassing and can be arrested. If you enter another persons home with permission they most certainly can ask you to leave, if you you do not do that law enforcement may be called, firearm or no firearm.

Please allow me to be direct.

Now is not the time to "stand up for your rights" in the situation described by the OP. There may be far reaching consequences.

Missouri citizens have a obligation to stand up for their rights. Being asked to leave private property, by a cop who seems to be acting on the behalf of a private property owner, is neither the time nor the place to stand up for your rights. Comply with the demands of the private property owner. Meet the demands of the letter of the law and then take your business elsewhere.

There are other venues, other than a sidewalk, that will inform a particular LEA that one of their officers did not comport himself in a manner consistent with the law, or perhaps even department policy. Another time and another place so to speak to gain a redress of wrongs.

NavyLCDR said:

1. The officer had no legal basis to disarm the OP, because the officer had no legal basis to detain the op.
2. The business had no legal complaint against the OP which the police could legally investigate/enforce because the business never asked the OP to leave. They called the police first to enforce a company policy, not because a crime was being committed which would have been the case had the business asked the OP to leave and he refused.

My question is, why was "Are you detaining me, officer?" never asked? The OP, it seems, voluntarily complied with all of the officer's requests, but he was under no legal obligation to do so. The police can only legally enforce statutes and ordinances, not company policies. What happens when officers detain persons in order to enforce company policies?

http://www.examiner.com/article/alamogordo-police-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit

Click to expand...

There is an obligation to produce your ccw permit when requested by law enforcement. Since the OP was carrying a concealed firearm, the officer needed to confirm the carrier has a valid permit. Otherwise the OP could be detained for investigation of a weapon offense.

Shooter64738 said:

There is an obligation to produce your ccw permit when requested by law enforcement. Since the OP was carrying a concealed firearm, the officer needed to confirm the carrier has a valid permit. Otherwise the OP could be detained for investigation of a weapon offense.

Click to expand...

Only if the initial stop is lawful and performed while the officer is in the lawful performance of his duties. Acting on behalf of a property owner in removing an unwelcome guest is not the performance of lawful duties.

Just ask David McCOLLEY and The Six Unknown Officers of the Alamogordo Department of Public Safety how that works.

ETA: I see NavyLCDR already posted a link to the story.

Shooter64738 said:

There is an obligation to produce your ccw permit when requested by law enforcement. Since the OP was carrying a concealed firearm, the officer needed to confirm the carrier has a valid permit. Otherwise the OP could be detained for investigation of a weapon offense.

Click to expand...

There was no reason for the officer to suspect that the OP did NOT have a ccw permit, and since he had no reason to detain, had the OP not voluntarily given consent, the officer would have been wrong to insist.

notalawyer said:

Only if the initial stop is lawful and performed while the officer is in the lawful performance of his duties. Acting on behalf of a property owner in removing an unwelcome guest is not the performance of lawful duties.
Just ask David McCOLLEY and The Six Unknown Officers of the Alamogordo Department of Public Safety how that works.
ETA: I see NavyLCDR already posted a link to the story.

Click to expand...

The officers first task would be to determine if the person carrying the concealed firearm has a valid permit that has not expired, been revoked or suspended. If said person is carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, that person has comitted a felony. The officer would not be acting to enforce the personal choices of a private party, but to determine if a felony was being comitted by the carrier. The officer would be acting on information given by the property owner, that the person is carrying a concealed firearm. The next step is to determine if that person is carrying it legally with a permit, or felouniously without one.

If the carrier does have a valid permit but opts out of producing the concelaed weapons permit, they face a fine of $35. But if carrying a concealed weapon and they do not have a valid permit, they risk a felony conviction.

carolina guy said:

There was no reason for the officer to suspect that the OP did NOT have a ccw permit, and since he had no reason to detain, had the OP not voluntarily given consent, the officer would have been wrong to insist.

Click to expand...

Unfortunatley in Missouri, you may not carry a concealed firearm on or about your person outside your home or vehicle without a permit. If a police officer is asked to investigate a person carrying a concealed firearm, it is reasonable for that officer to inquire of the carrier if they have a permit or not. Without the permit, the person is comitting a class D felony. In the pursuit of determining weather a crime was comitted or not, the permit is the dividing line.

ETA: To clarify, a police officer would not have randomly stopped him for walking down the sidewalk with his firearm concealed and requested to see his permit. But if a third party (as in this case) brought it to the officers attention (regardless of why they reported it to the officer) the officer can inquiry as to the permit status to determine if a crime is being comittted.

NavyLCDR said:

However, the only request the OP had to comply with was to show a concealed carry endorsement. The OP was under no legal obligation to submit to any other request made by the officer because there was no reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, including the initial request to "step outside". Unless you are absolutely certain that you know that you are being detained by a police officer, such as a traffic stop with the lights flashing, the first question that should be asked is, "Are you detaining me?" If the answer is no, either walk away or request that the police officer leave you alone. Then, if the theater management didn't want him there, the police would tell the manager, "we will stand here while you ask him to leave, because we are here to enforce laws, not company policy."

Click to expand...

Absolutley i agree. I read his post as the manager asking him to disarm or leave not the police officer. But if thats the case then again i would agree. Once his permit was determined valid the officers job was done unless managment told him to leave and he refused.

Shooter64738 said:

Unfortunately in Missouri, you may not carry a concealed firearm on or about your person outside your home or vehicle without a permit. If a police officer is asked to investigate a person carrying a concealed firearm, it is reasonable for that officer to inquire of the carrier if they have a permit or not. Without the permit, the person is committing a class D felony. In the pursuit of determining weather a crime was committed or not, the permit is the dividing line.

Click to expand...

How is concealed carry worded in Missouri law?

To clarify, the law in most states is that it is illegal to drive on public highways without a license, not that it is illegal to drive, with the issuance of a license being the exception to that law. That is; a driver can't be pulled over 'just to check and make sure he/she has a driver's license'. It is presumed legal unless the officer can articulate why he suspects the driver does not possess a valid driving license.

I'm curious as the law in Georgia recently changed, whereas before the law made carrying a weapon illegal with the exception being issued a weapons license the new law is that it is illegal to carry without a license (and therefore it requires that there be some suspicion that the carrier does not possess a license in order to make the stop legal.)

Fallschirmjäger said:

How is concealed carry worded in Missouri law?

To clarify, the law in most states is that it is illegal to drive on public highways without a license, not that it is illegal to drive, with the issuance of a license being the exception to that law. That is; a driver can't be pulled over 'just to check and make sure he/she has a driver's license'. It is presumed legal unless the officer can articulate why he suspects the driver does not possess a valid driving license.

I'm curious as the law in Georgia recently changed, whereas before the law made carrying a weapon illegal with the exception being issued a weapons license the new law is that it is illegal to carry without a license (and therefore it requires that there be some suspicion that the carrier does not possess a license in order to make the stop legal.)

Click to expand...

That would be my thought as well...so the default "state" is that the carrier is presumed to be carrying illegally?

carolina guy said:

That would be my thought as well...so the default "state" is that the carrier is presumed to be carrying illegally?

Click to expand...

The officer had reasonable suspicion as theater personnel reported MWAG. Simple as that.

Management reported it to the police in which they investigated.

I understand that a crime must be committed for an officer to detain and question however, I felt that the officer was merely trying to deescalate some "girly men" (those afraid of guns)

I complied simply to keep the situation from becoming hostile. If I had felt the officer was deliberately trying to intimidate me, abuse me, or commit an illegal act such as disarming me, I wouldnt have been cooperative at all.

basically, by the officer's body language and attitude AFTER he had learned I had a valid CCW, he seemed reluctant to continue our conversation. His questions seemed forced, as if he felt he had to because he felt it was his job.

The managers were a couple of dorky looking fellows who were the ones who looked like they were about ready to pee their pants.

The sign was a joke. It was no where near the front entrance. You'd have to comb the lobby looking for it. Not to mention having to read through a couple of small print paragraphs with no pictures.