"Cinemark Theaters" & City Council of Aurora, CO banned guns from the theaters...

[Reason]

This was posted on a CO gun rights organization's FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/rmgofb

The blame is rightly placed on the shooter, but blood is also on the hands of Cinemark Theaters and the city council of Aurora, Colorado. Aurora has a municipal ordinance which makes it illegal to carry into a premises that is posted "no guns." In other words, the city gave private signage the force of law. Cinemark theaters has had a no guns policy for some time, and has asked law-abiding citizens to leave for exercising their natural and Constitutional right to armed self-defense. Shame on them.

Sec. 94-152. - Firearms on private property.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to enter or remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment when such property, building, or establishment is posted with notification that the carrying of firearms is prohibited.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment after such person has been given verbal notice that the carrying of firearms is prohibited on such property, building, or establishment.

(c) Possession of a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to repeal, or possession of a permit or temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to pt. 2 of art. 18 of tit. 9 of the Colorado Revised Statutes shall be no defense to a violation of this section.

[phill4paul]

I'm sure the assailant will be properly ticketed for his infraction.

[jkr]

GOOD THING ITS ILLEGAL...

[donnay]

And if people exercise their second amendment right, and had a gun on them at the time, they could have been instrumental in saving lives!!

[GunnyFreedom]

Although it may be just as ignorant for private orgs to ban concealed carry as it is for governments to do the same, I don't believe that removing the right of private property owners control their own properties is the answer either. While I refuse to patronize retailers that ban concealed carry on their premises, I would never dream of making it illegal for them to ban conceal carry on their own property.

[specsaregood]

In other words, the city gave private signage the force of law. Cinemark theaters has had a no guns policy for some time, and has asked law-abiding citizens to leave for exercising their natural and Constitutional right to armed self-defense. Shame on them.[/B]


Good for them, I have no problem with that. sounds like a pro-private property position.

[Acala]

Although it may be just as ignorant for private orgs to ban concealed carry as it is for governments to do the same, I don't believe that removing the right of private property owners control their own properties is the answer either. While I refuse to patronize retailers that ban concealed carry on their premises, I would never dream of making it illegal for them to ban conceal carry on their own property.

You got it exactly right. You should run for office!

[Acala]

Good for them, I have no problem with that. sounds like a pro-private property position.

Yup. People should be free to make really stupid decisions on their own property.

[CaptUSA]

Although it may be just as ignorant for private orgs to ban concealed carry as it is for governments to do the same, I don't believe that removing the right of private property owners control their own properties is the answer either. While I refuse to patronize retailers that ban concealed carry on their premises, I would never dream of making it illegal for them to ban conceal carry on their own property.Yeah, I see no problem with this type of law. It allows the business owner to decide. I don't know why you need another law for it... You could just as easily charge them with tresspassing if they didn't leave when you asked them.

Still, the wisdom of putting up a sign like this is questionable to say the least. I wonder if there's a criminal hell-bent on destruction somewhere that says to himself, "I was going to shoot up that place, but dammit... They have a sign!"

[phill4paul]

Still, the wisdom of putting up a sign like this is questionable to say the least. I wonder if there's a criminal hell-bent on destruction somewhere that says to himself, "I was going to shoot up that place, but dammit... They have a sign!"

More like.. ""I'm going to shoot up a place. I would face less opposition if I did it in a place where no one was armed. Hey, look at that sign"

[specsaregood]

Still, the wisdom of putting up a sign like this is questionable to say the least. I wonder if there's a criminal hell-bent on destruction somewhere that says to himself, "I was going to shoot up that place, but dammit... They have a sign!"

Meh, I can think of plenty of people that aren't criminals that I wouldn't want to be around while they are carrying.

[osan]

We can all see how spectacularly effective the ban has been.

What morons. Authoritarian, grasping, blind morons.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, I see no problem with this type of law. It allows the business owner to decide. I don't know why you need another law for it... You could just as easily charge them with tresspassing if they didn't leave when you asked them.

In my admittedly limited experience, these kinds of laws are mostly written if there is existing confusion in the law, meaning that there is a concealed carry statute elsewhere that allows for concealed carry in certain venues, and then another law gets written to clarify that the property owner can still ban such carry with a sign on all the access points.

In NC we mostly handled this with a "nothing in this statute" disclaimer, much along the lines of "nothing in this statute should be construed as limiting the powers of property owners to restrict the concealed carry of weapons within their own establishments."

I'm pretty sure that every state that allows concealed carry also has a concealed carry sign ordinance, detailing the kinds and placement of signage, the type of information they must contain, how large or readable they must be, and what laws are violated if they are ignored.

This one seems to go a little further than I am accustomed to, but seems pretty standard fare nonetheless.

But hey, we're certainly not one to talk in NC, it's illegal to conceal carry in ANY establishment that "charges admission" in NC, so no sign needed in NC it's just plain illegal from the get-go. :(

We did make significant gains in gun rights in 2011-2012 though, so that's a good thing. Still have a LOT of work to do.


Still, the wisdom of putting up a sign like this is questionable to say the least. I wonder if there's a criminal hell-bent on destruction somewhere that says to himself, "I was going to shoot up that place, but dammit... They have a sign!"

Yeah, no question it's dumb, but if the property owners want to ban CCW on their property that's how they do it. Banning CCW is pretty dumb in and of itself, but that's another matter.

[CaptUSA]

Meh, I can think of plenty of people that aren't criminals that I wouldn't want to be around while they are carrying.Yeah... I was thinking that it might make sense in a darkened theater with little kids running around. Who knows if one of them would get curious about the cool belt buckle on the guy in front of them.

Still, I really have to reach to grasp a good reason to put up this kind of sign. At any rate, if that's what the business owner wants to do, so be it.

[TomtheTinker]

As an avid gun owner I more than support gun ownership and also agree that the more good people who are armed the less damage a bad guy can do. I am also an advid property owner who respects the choice of othe property owners to decide on their own if guns are allowed or not on their premises.

[GunnyFreedom]

Meh, I can think of plenty of people that aren't criminals that I wouldn't want to be around while they are carrying.

Although 100% true, by the time someone manages to get a CCW permit and the people who have the volition to do so, are generally not a threat to innocents.

[osan]

And if people exercise their second amendment right, and had a gun on them at the time, they could have been instrumental in saving lives!!

I tend to agree - however, opening fire in a darkened theater is risky business. Just sayin'...

But I do believe that the result would not have been any worse had there been 20 people in the theater with the means of putting that rabid waste of life down, and possibly way better.

I am thinking it is time to boycott Cinemark Theaters, given what complete assholes they have proven themselves to be.

[GunnyFreedom]

You got it exactly right. You should run for office!

LOL maybe I'll try that one day, who knows? :p

[AME3]

When my wife and I took a concealed carry course in NC a few years ago we were told that NC law banned the carry into any place that charged admission among numerous other locations. In fact we were so dismayed by the law that it wasn't worth paying and registering for the CCL although we enjoyed the course. Did you guys get that changed Gunny?
Although it may be just as ignorant for private orgs to ban concealed carry as it is for governments to do the same, I don't believe that removing the right of private property owners control their own properties is the answer either. While I refuse to patronize retailers that ban concealed carry on their premises, I would never dream of making it illegal for them to ban conceal carry on their own property.

[GunnyFreedom]

When my wife and I took a concealed carry course in NC a few years ago we were told that NC law banned the carry into any place that charged admission among numerous other locations. In fact we were so dismayed by the law that it wasn't worth paying and registering for the CCL although we enjoyed the course. Did you guys get that changed Gunny?

No, we didn't get that one changed, but we did manage to expand CC significantly, as well as real castle doctrine. We had a bill with overwhelming support to expand CC into restaurants where alcohol is served (providing that the CC licensee didn't drink) that was personally killed by Senator Phil Berger.

It's still worth it, the primary places you have to avoid now being 1) any place that serves alcohol and 2) any place that charges admission. There are LOTS and lots of places that neither charge admission nor serve alcohol.

I suspect that restaurant carry will come back in 2013, and I will do what I can (as a 'retired' member) to start chipping away at the 'charges admission' prohibition. The first thing will be to get together a bunch of property owners who charge admission that support the repeal. The hard part will be finding them.

[BuddyRey]

This point needs to be emphasized EVERYWHERE we go. This theater was a "gun-free zone."

[donnay]

Occupy Black Bloc Member James E. Holmes Shoots Up Aurora Co Movie Theater Killing 12 And Wounding 50.

http://cheatersflorida.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/update-occupy-black-bloc-member-james-e-holmes-shoots-up-aurora-co-movie-theater-killing-12-and-wounding-50/

[Kotin]

Wonder what would have happened at the cyber cafe had it been a "gun-free zone"

[ghengis86]

It's definitely the right of private property owners to restrict certain activities on their property. But I do think that if they eliminate an avenue for patrons to protect themselves from life threatening situations, they should be liable for providing adequate measures to provide the same level of protection that the prohibited activity would have provided. Private security comes to mind (preferably armed; unarmed defeats the purpose but would be a deterrent I guess).

Lots of business hang those auto-defibs on the walls for when patrons suffer a heart attack; maybe they should hang boxes on the wall with .44 mags, FN 5.7's and M1As? Break glass in case of emergency (which automatically triggers a law enforcement alarm and activates on premise camera). I'm only half-joking here...that would be an interesting thought experiment. Or real one.

[Pericles]

In my admittedly limited experience, these kinds of laws are mostly written if there is existing confusion in the law, meaning that there is a concealed carry statute elsewhere that allows for concealed carry in certain venues, and then another law gets written to clarify that the property owner can still ban such carry with a sign on all the access points.

In NC we mostly handled this with a "nothing in this statute" disclaimer, much along the lines of "nothing in this statute should be construed as limiting the powers of property owners to restrict the concealed carry of weapons within their own establishments."

I'm pretty sure that every state that allows concealed carry also has a concealed carry sign ordinance, detailing the kinds and placement of signage, the type of information they must contain, how large or readable they must be, and what laws are violated if they are ignored.

This one seems to go a little further than I am accustomed to, but seems pretty standard fare nonetheless.

But hey, we're certainly not one to talk in NC, it's illegal to conceal carry in ANY establishment that "charges admission" in NC, so no sign needed in NC it's just plain illegal from the get-go. :(

We did make significant gains in gun rights in 2011-2012 though, so that's a good thing. Still have a LOT of work to do.



Yeah, no question it's dumb, but if the property owners want to ban CCW on their property that's how they do it. Banning CCW is pretty dumb in and of itself, but that's another matter.

Ironically, in Texas, that is section 30.06 of the law

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Although it may be just as ignorant for private orgs to ban concealed carry as it is for governments to do the same, I don't believe that removing the right of private property owners control their own properties is the answer either. While I refuse to patronize retailers that ban concealed carry on their premises, I would never dream of making it illegal for them to ban conceal carry on their own property.


I think the states who have it right are the ones who say signs do not have any particular force of law. So if someone does choose to carry in an establishment with "no gun" signs, and an owner notices and objects, it is a trespassing issue.



No, we didn't get that one changed, but we did manage to expand CC significantly, as well as real castle doctrine. We had a bill with overwhelming support to expand CC into restaurants where alcohol is served (providing that the CC licensee didn't drink) that was personally killed by Senator Phil Berger.

It's still worth it, the primary places you have to avoid now being 1) any place that serves alcohol and 2) any place that charges admission. There are LOTS and lots of places that neither charge admission nor serve alcohol.

In FL, my (non lawyer) understanding is that you can't sit at the bar, but you're free to legally have a beer in the restaurant area of an establishment. Smart legislators, huh.



2) any place that charges admission.

That's pretty crappy. TONs of places charge admission. What an arbitrary shitty way to make law.

[PierzStyx]

Although it may be just as ignorant for private orgs to ban concealed carry as it is for governments to do the same, I don't believe that removing the right of private property owners control their own properties is the answer either. While I refuse to patronize retailers that ban concealed carry on their premises, I would never dream of making it illegal for them to ban conceal carry on their own property.

I think this is a right vs. right issue. I would argue that no business can rightfully ban firearms on their property, it being a constitutional right. If they want to open a public business they have to respect the rights of the general public. And on of those rights is (or should be at least) to carry a firearm.

[UtahApocalypse]

Posted this on my FB:

So when someone takes already illegal guns, into a "gun free" zone and kills a dozen people the first thing Democrats start crying for is even more gun laws. Once all guns are made illegal the only persons with them will be the government, and the criminals. One armed person could potentially have ended this massacre right away. Remember one thing about the Batman shooting..... When seconds counted the police were TWO minutes away.

[JK/SEA]

Could you make a case for a suit against the theater for banning guns?....

[AME3]

Thankyou Gunny for all your hard efforts, and the castle doctrine was was an outstanding accomplishment no doubt. I wish you would move into my district, I'd sure vote and work to get you back in there. Who got your seat anyway? Some dimcrat? I also heard you guys got that bs law concerning crossbows changed too. Again, thankyou sir I am really disappointed in the dumbasses in this state.
No, we didn't get that one changed, but we did manage to expand CC significantly, as well as real castle doctrine. We had a bill with overwhelming support to expand CC into restaurants where alcohol is served (providing that the CC licensee didn't drink) that was personally killed by Senator Phil Berger.

It's still worth it, the primary places you have to avoid now being 1) any place that serves alcohol and 2) any place that charges admission. There are LOTS and lots of places that neither charge admission nor serve alcohol.

I suspect that restaurant carry will come back in 2013, and I will do what I can (as a 'retired' member) to start chipping away at the 'charges admission' prohibition. The first thing will be to get together a bunch of property owners who charge admission that support the repeal. The hard part will be finding them.

[FindLiberty]

...darkened theater with little kids running around. ...
...this kind of sign. At any rate, if that's what the business owner wants to do, so be it.

Flash bang grenades or M-80s tossed at the assailant would have helped save lives if the assailant was then temporarily blinded. Kids would have had to be careful as they lit the fuse as it might illuminate them as a target.

If I'm assigned (new) manager at that movie theater, the razor blade would come out and have that "No Guns" sign gone from all the door glass as my first priority. Instead, the corporate HQ will probably just mandate that larger "No Guns" signs go up ASAP.

Crazy people on a mission to inflict harm won't stop to notice such a sign. Even if they did notice it, if anything that "No Guns" sign is more likely to attract trouble than magically repel it. I might add "Kill", "Cap the sorry sick ass of", "Punch the ticket of" or Subdue the SOB" to the standard posted "Eject / call police" warning sign that reads, "Management Reserves the Right to _____ Anyone Causing Trouble from the Theatre, with No Refund".

I'd be reluctant to have police or private SWAT in full gear at the ready, watching the audience via IR security cameras, but it's also an option unless the assailant is wearing IR camo... Never mind, but if that needs to be implemented, rest assured that the "outside food and beverage ban" will not also be enforced using these I/R devices, trust me.

CC makes more sense than open carry - less likely to have accidental mass shootings that would likely result! Keep cool and stay out of the crap people.

It was a tragedy. I weep when I imagine those families, and their children harmed. But please, no more new stupid laws to prevent this or that.

Stay home and watch a DVD with you own gun at the ready. (Corporate just notified me I'm no longer the new manager with an attitude like that.)

That sick mofo needs to go away forever, after a fair jury trial with nullification options and a thorough vetting, etc. Then fry 'em!

[jbauer]

Yup. People should be free to make really stupid decisions on their own property.

Assuming that their stupid decision isn't going to be fixed by society as a whole through taxation.

[Dr.3D]

So when the uniformed police enter a place with a sign saying "Gun free gun zone." are they supposed to leave their guns in the car? Considering, every law abiding citizen is also someone who can defend against and apprehend someone who is breaking the law, I guess the uniformed police would also have to leave their guns outside of those places.

[Pericles]

So when the uniformed police enter a place with a sign saying "Gun free gun zone." are they supposed to leave their guns in the car? Considering, every law abiding citizen is also someone who can defend against and apprehend someone who is breaking the law, I guess the uniformed police would also have to leave their guns outside of those places.

There is always an exception for our lords and masters.

[AME3]

hear hear to that Doc! spot on...
So when the uniformed police enter a place with a sign saying "Gun free gun zone." are they supposed to leave their guns in the car? Considering, every law abiding citizen is also someone who can defend against and apprehend someone who is breaking the law, I guess the uniformed police would also have to leave their guns outside of those places.

[Expatriate]

So when the uniformed police enter a place with a sign saying "Gun free gun zone." are they supposed to leave their guns in the car? Considering, every law abiding citizen is also someone who can defend against and apprehend someone who is breaking the law, I guess the uniformed police would also have to leave their guns outside of those places.

They are not citizens, they are on some higher plane apparently.

[donnay]

So when the uniformed police enter a place with a sign saying "Gun free gun zone." are they supposed to leave their guns in the car? Considering, every law abiding citizen is also someone who can defend against and apprehend someone who is breaking the law, I guess the uniformed police would also have to leave their guns outside of those places.

That's what makes them above the law. Now move along mundane nothing else to talk about. <S>

[Expatriate]

Look, if you’ve successfully carried out a shooting rampage, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help... Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to carry out your massacre. Somebody invested in creating gun laws and victim disarmament zones. If you’ve got a massacre -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

[phill4paul]

Look, if you’ve successfully carried out a shooting rampage, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help... Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to carry out your massacre. Somebody invested in creating gun laws and victim disarmament zones. If you’ve got a massacre -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Big ole + rep!

[Kelly.]

serious question:
why would you NOT conceal carry in a place where you arent forced to submit to a search?

to me, id rather face a potential charge while retaining the right to defend myself, and if there are no problems, no one would even know you were carrying.

also kind of OT, can i ask a police officer to disarm before entering my private property?

[AME3]

lol yeah, do you think obama's gonna say "you didn't do that", the NRA, the gun makers, and the second amendment did it...
Look, if you’ve successfully carried out a shooting rampage, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help... Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to carry out your massacre. Somebody invested in creating gun laws and victim disarmament zones. If you’ve got a massacre -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

serious question:
why would you NOT conceal carry in a place where you arent forced to submit to a search?

to me, id rather face a potential charge while retaining the right to defend myself, and if there are no problems, no one would even know you were carrying.



This is exactly why many states treat "no gun signs" as not "having the force of law." If you are made and asked to leave, it is a trespassing issue. Otherwise, it is a non issue.

In some other states where the signs "have the force of law," then you are looking at being charged with a gun crime instead of trespassing.

[ghengis86]

serious question:
why would you NOT conceal carry in a place where you arent forced to submit to a search?

to me, id rather face a potential charge while retaining the right to defend myself, and if there are no problems, no one would even know you were carrying.

also kind of OT, can i ask a police officer to disarm before entering my private property?

Sure you can

He'll pull his sidearm, discharge all the rounds in the mag into the mundane or dog closest and then he'll be disarmed.

But yes, you can ask and he will say no. And if you don't leave it at that, you risk escalation, confinement and death.

Make it a habit to not talk to cops. If they don't have a warrant, don't answer the door or ask them to leave your property, shut your mouth and disengage.

[Kelly.]

Sure you can

He'll pull his sidearm, discharge all the rounds in the mag into the mundane or dog closest and then he'll be disarmed.

But yes, you can ask and he will say no. And if you don't leave it at that, you risk escalation, confinement and death.

Make it a habit to not talk to cops. If they don't have a warrant, don't answer the door or ask them to leave your property, shut your mouth and disengage.

thanks, i was only sort of joking.
i have a gated property. to include remote door bell and a IP camera watching the gate :)

[youngbuck]

serious question:
why would you NOT conceal carry in a place where you arent forced to submit to a search?

to me, id rather face a potential charge while retaining the right to defend myself, and if there are no problems, no one would even know you were carrying.

I'd imagine that's what most people would do if they had any common sense. It's quite simple: it's concealed, so nobody knows you have it, and the only time you'd need to pull it out is if presented with a serious threat to life or limb. Hmm, let's see. Shall I be completely defenseless, or shall I save my life and the lives of others and risk breaking a theater's policy or some relatively trivial criminal charge? That's a tough one.

[UtahApocalypse]

I'd imagine that's what most people would do if they had any common sense. It's quite simple: it's concealed, so nobody knows you have it, and the only time you'd need to pull it out is if presented with a serious threat to life or limb. Hmm, let's see. Shall I be completely defenseless, or shall I save my life and the lives of others and risk breaking a theater's policy or some relatively trivial criminal charge? That's a tough one.

I wonder what will happen the first time someone pulls out a legal CCW firearm and end one of these shootings within a Gun Free Zone. Think ANY Prosecutor would file charges? Think a Theater (or other business) would ban the person?

[ghengis86]

I wonder what will happen the first time someone pulls out a legal CCW firearm and end one of these shootings within a Gun Free Zone. Think ANY Prosecutor would file charges? Think a Theater (or other business) would ban the person?

In short, yes

[GunnyFreedom]

I wonder what will happen the first time someone pulls out a legal CCW firearm and end one of these shootings within a Gun Free Zone. Think ANY Prosecutor would file charges? Think a Theater (or other business) would ban the person?

Yes, and yes.

And the media will blithely tell the good Americans that more people died because of that nasty gun owner, paving the way for and excusing the good samaritan's prosecution. Only a fraction will buy the media's line, but the gun rights position will have been marginalized enough that people won't riot when the samaritan is convicted. :(

[phill4paul]

In short, yes

However, it would NEVER receive MSM non-stop 24/7 coverage. The carrier would spend his limited resources, maybe getting a reduced charge for acquiescence for silence, and the media would move on.

[Brett85]

I don't think that even armed citizens could've stopped this gunman, since he had a bullet proof vest on and other protective gear.

[AME3]

and of course loose any guns he had and be forever banned from owning one in the future...but he would be alive.
However, it would NEVER receive MSM non-stop 24/7 coverage. The carrier would spend his limited resources, maybe getting a reduced charge for acquiescence for silence, and the media would move on.

[Keith and stuff]

No, we didn't get that one changed, but we did manage to expand CC significantly, as well as real castle doctrine. We had a bill with overwhelming support to expand CC into restaurants where alcohol is served (providing that the CC licensee didn't drink) that was personally killed by Senator Phil Berger.

It's still worth it, the primary places you have to avoid now being 1) any place that serves alcohol and 2) any place that charges admission. There are LOTS and lots of places that neither charge admission nor serve alcohol.

I suspect that restaurant carry will come back in 2013, and I will do what I can (as a 'retired' member) to start chipping away at the 'charges admission' prohibition. The first thing will be to get together a bunch of property owners who charge admission that support the repeal. The hard part will be finding them.

I would remove any references to not being able to drink in a bar while carrying. That is going to be extremely hard to pass as it's own later. Get it in now, if possible, it is worth it a essential right.

[phill4paul]

I would remove any references to not being able to drink in a bar while carrying. That is going to be extremely hard to pass as it's own later. Get it in now, if possible, it is worth it a essential right.

No it is needed. IMHO. Pretty much finds legitimacy the same as a 'designated driver' law. It will not pass otherwise. Fears of the 'Old West' and all.

[osan]

This point needs to be emphasized EVERYWHERE we go. This theater was a "gun-free zone."

As are schools. Hmmm... Columbine... VA Tech... no possible connection at all, of course. Carry on as usual folks. We, your government are not a gang of psychotics so out of touch with reality that it is a small wonder we do not all sleep on the RR tracks. Nosir. We are rational. We are sane. We are infallible.

We are imbeciles, is more like it.

[osan]

It's definitely the right of private property owners to restrict certain activities on their property. But I do think that if they eliminate an avenue for patrons to protect themselves from life threatening situations, they should be liable for providing adequate measures to provide the same level of protection that the prohibited activity would have provided. Private security comes to mind (preferably armed; unarmed defeats the purpose but would be a deterrent I guess).

I am all over this. If you are running a business that serves the public and you strip them of their ability to protect themselves at the door, as far as I am concerned you should be strictly liable for any injury to one and all that comes through criminal action.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think that even armed citizens could've stopped this gunman, since he had a bullet proof vest on and other protective gear.

You haven't met this armed citizen.

two quick in the chest, unless he is carrying a trauma plate that's gonna stun him but good, and then take time to line the third shot up center-mass on the head. Has the benefit of if he is still standing then the head shot is obviously necessary. If he is not you can get right up on him and possibly disarm him while he is still stunned, but also from 8 inches it's kinda hard to miss. The major SNAFU in this case being the tear gas. I have a mask at home, it won't be with me at the movies. Of course I may have more tolerance to tear gas than most, having been through the chamber...his visibility is also severely restricted by the mask...

[GunnyFreedom]

I would remove any references to not being able to drink in a bar while carrying. That is going to be extremely hard to pass as it's own later. Get it in now, if possible, it is worth it a essential right.

Not only would that never pass, any legislator that introduced it would find themselves out of a job next election. :( I don't agree with my good friend Phill that the provision should be in law, but I do know the political realities around here. If we have friends good enough to introduce bills, we don't want them getting fired by the moralists in the next election, we want them to stick around and keep introducing bills. The MADD crowd would be ALL over this even tough it has literally nothing to do with driving. The N&O would paint the legislator as wanting people to booze it up and start randomly shooting up bars. Hell, even the CCW advocates would probably oppose it for fear of one drunk moron setting us all back decades.

[AME3]

I totally agree with that! Not only does such an action strip the law abiding of protection but it also advertises that fact possibly encouraging the criminal.
I am all over this. If you are running a business that serves the public and you strip them of their ability to protect themselves at the door, as far as I am concerned you should be strictly liable for any injury to one and all that comes through criminal action.

[AME3]

Oh yeah...the old double tap, and the mask isn't bullet proof and he can't see very well in it. Guess the saying once a Marine always a Marine is true.
You haven't met this armed citizen.

two quick in the chest, unless he is carrying a trauma plate that's gonna stun him but good, and then take time to line the third shot up center-mass on the head. Has the benefit of if he is still standing then the head shot is obviously necessary. If he is not you can get right up on him and possibly disarm him while he is still stunned, but also from 8 inches it's kinda hard to miss. The major SNAFU in this case being the tear gas. I have a mask at home, it won't be with me at the movies. Of course I may have more tolerance to tear gas than most, having been through the chamber...his visibility is also severely restricted by the mask...

[bunklocoempire]

I am all over this. If you are running a business that serves the public and you strip them of their ability to protect themselves at the door, as far as I am concerned you should be strictly liable for any injury to one and all that comes through criminal action.

I disagree. EDIT: or was that sarcasm? I'm not teh birightest bulb ya know.... lol

Only the criminal is liable... ever.

No one forced those unfortunate folks to go to a private victim-disarmament zone. (I understand this disarmament zone was voluntary of the business owners and not government mandated, please correct me if I'm wrong)

Maybe this ain't 'law-correct', but I view a "public" place as anything government takes and keeps by force. Parks, ocean front, streets, schools etc.

In the case of a "public place" as I view it, then yeah, I'd agree with you. Someone telling me I can't protect myself on property that is supposedly mine or "shared" is wrong.

The theater goers were paying for the movie, and not owners of the property. Now if the owners of the property hurt/killed the patrons directly with a neglected building falling down or ..? that would be a bit different to me.

There are reasons wifey and I don't go overnight camping in some areas of public access/beaches that we're forced to pay for.

At those public places we would "illegally" defend ourselves if it came to it and pay the price for it. We avoid that. Now that, that ain't right.

The theater owners, and the patrons to a lesser extent perhaps, bought into a lie. Sad business all around.

[John F Kennedy III]

And if people exercise their second amendment right, and had a gun on them at the time, they could have been instrumental in saving lives!!

Exactly. No way he could have shot 20 people if there were a few in there with their own guns.

[brandon]

Anyone have a link sourcing this? I want to share on my facebook but I need something credible to link to.

[Expatriate]

Anyone have a link sourcing this? I want to share on my facebook but I need something credible to link to.

Here's another source, maybe more reliable than facefook:

http://newyorkcityguns.com/2012/07/colorodo-movie-theatre-bans-ccw-gun-free-zone/


“Headquartered in Plano, TX, Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry with 459 theatres and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America as of March 31, 2012,” their website reports. Cinemark owns the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, scene of last night’s mass shooting. Cinemark doesn’t allow anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry legal firearms in their theaters. The ban hadn’t escape the attention of some of Cinemark’s law-abiding, gun-toting customers—even before last night’s homicidal frenzy. Make the jump for the story of a Cinemark patron ejected from the cinema for Open Carrying [via defensivecarry.com] . . .
(http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/open-carry-issues-discussions/89005-asked-leave-cinemark-theater.html)



A friend and I decided to go see Law Abiding Citizen [in Anchorage Alaska] after attending a local 2nd Amendment organization Banquet. We were already open carrying from the Banquet so we didn’t bother putting on our jackets. We made our way into the theater and stood in line to purchase our tickets, so far there wasn’t any problems.

I was OCing my 1911, my friend was OCing his G22, and we purchased our tickets and made our way to the theater so we could get good seats. As we near our theater two managers a male and female come out of nowhere and the conversation goes something like this . . .

Manager: Excuse me guys but firearms are not allowed in here, you’ll have to put them in your vehicle.

My friend: Really when did that happen, I’ve carried here many times with no problem, well we’d like to see your policy on that please!

Manager: Okay come with me

We followed the manager up to the ticket counter and he showed us this small cardboard sign that said “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” at the very bottom. We told the manager that we wished to receive a full refund and we would not be returning to the theater in the future. He said nothing, and we were given our refunds with no further problems . . .

We ended up going to a shopping mall that has a theater inside and we were able to see our movie without being asked to leave . . .

This is indeed the slight inconvenience we put up with, but I really feel if enough people got behind this “no guns = no money” that businesses would change their policies real quick. However I don’t see that happening anytime soon because most people are too lazy to take a stand.

[Expatriate]

You haven't met this armed citizen.

two quick in the chest, unless he is carrying a trauma plate that's gonna stun him but good, and then take time to line the third shot up center-mass on the head. Has the benefit of if he is still standing then the head shot is obviously necessary. If he is not you can get right up on him and possibly disarm him while he is still stunned, but also from 8 inches it's kinda hard to miss. The major SNAFU in this case being the tear gas. I have a mask at home, it won't be with me at the movies. Of course I may have more tolerance to tear gas than most, having been through the chamber...his visibility is also severely restricted by the mask...

If anyone is thinking "yeah, sure, but he's a Marine, anyone else wouldn't have a chance"

When armed people (cops) did show up (who don't necessarily have great marksmanship skills), the madman surrendered instantly. Why would he do that unless he was deathly afraid of being shot? I highly doubt he cared about the increased penalty for shooting a cop compared to a "mundane", he had already killed enough mundanes that it wouldn't make a difference.

Even if the body armor initially saved him from an armed citizen shooting him in the chest, I'm willing to bet he would have pissed his pants and run at that point, especially since he would probably not be able to see where the shots were coming from due to the mask, and we'd have a lot less dead and wounded.

[donnay]

I don't think that even armed citizens could've stopped this gunman, since he had a bullet proof vest on and other protective gear.

He didn't have a bullet proof face.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm sure the assailant will be properly ticketed for his infraction.

There's the gist of the matter. Criminals and psychopaths do not care about regulations, laws or private property restrictions.

[Hyperion]

Exactly. No way he could have shot 20 people if there were a few in there with their own guns.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to John F Kennedy III again.

[John F Kennedy III]

He didn't have a bullet proof face.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to donnay again.

[Reason]

At what point are parents being negligent by raising their kids in localities that prevent them from carrying the tools necessary to defend their children?

[phill4paul]

Not only would that never pass, any legislator that introduced it would find themselves out of a job next election. :( I don't agree with my good friend Phill that the provision should be in law, but I do know the political realities around here. If we have friends good enough to introduce bills, we don't want them getting fired by the moralists in the next election, we want them to stick around and keep introducing bills. The MADD crowd would be ALL over this even tough it has literally nothing to do with driving. The N&O would paint the legislator as wanting people to booze it up and start randomly shooting up bars. Hell, even the CCW advocates would probably oppose it for fear of one drunk moron setting us all back decades.

That was the point I was trying to get across. I don't believe that provision should be in the law either. ;)

[Reason]

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Cinemark-gun-ban-notice-courtesy-vdcl.org_.jpeg

[coastie]

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Cinemark-gun-ban-notice-courtesy-vdcl.org_.jpeg

No way, all three of those signs clearly should have stopped him.

[Dr.3D]

No way, all three of those signs clearly should have stopped him.
Maybe he was having a reading comprehension problem that night... or(oar) it was too dark to read the signs. :p

[AME3]

I was just reading about the six year old that was killed and my first thought was why would someone take a six year old to a midnight showing of a violent PG13 movie? And how can they get them in? I see this as a seperate issue however, and suppose the libertarian position is that parents have a right to raise their children any way they choose? And the theatre has the right to enforce or not to enforce the rules? I am trying to learn here and appreciate any help I can get...

[AME3]

yeah, that's something I said too lol, actually I said maybe he couldn't read or missed the sign altogether...
Maybe he was having a reading comprehension problem that night... or(oar) it was too dark to read the signs. :p

[AGRP]

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Cinemark-gun-ban-notice-courtesy-vdcl.org_.jpeg

This happened because it was on the bottom!

[tangent4ronpaul]

And if people exercise their second amendment right, and had a gun on them at the time, they could have been instrumental in saving lives!!

I smell a class action lawsuit!

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Cinemark-gun-ban-notice-courtesy-vdcl.org_.jpeg

Obviously he was having a nic fit when his BIC died that made him go postal.
Either that or he lost his ticket stub when stepping out for some fresh air...

-t

[nobody's_hero]

I think this is a right vs. right issue. I would argue that no business can rightfully ban firearms on their property, it being a constitutional right. If they want to open a public business they have to respect the rights of the general public. And on of those rights is (or should be at least) to carry a firearm.

I'd rework that by saying if a private establishment wishes to disarm me, then they must either accept responsibility for my safety while I'm on the premises, or refuse my entry from the start.

And I'd be happy to spread around news about a business that refused customers because it would not guarantee safety of its customers. Who would want to do business at such a place?

[ZenBowman]

Business owners have the right to ban guns on their property, suggesting otherwise means you endorse the idea that government should force people to accept things on their property that they do not want.

[ZenBowman]

I think this is a right vs. right issue. I would argue that no business can rightfully ban firearms on their property, it being a constitutional right. If they want to open a public business they have to respect the rights of the general public. And on of those rights is (or should be at least) to carry a firearm.

A constitutional right only restricts government actions. Private property owners are not beholden to the Constitution.

Can a private institution like a church endorse a religion on its own property? Sure, even though government cannot.

Similarly, private institutions are not required to uphold constitutional rights on their property. If I require you to strip naked to be checked for weapons before entering my house, that is within my rights. You have the right to choose not to enter my property.

[ZenBowman]

I'd rework that by saying if a private establishment wishes to disarm me, then they must either accept responsibility for my safety while I'm on the premises, or refuse my entry from the start.

And I'd be happy to spread around news about a business that refused customers because it would not guarantee safety of its customers. Who would want to do business at such a place?

This will almost certainly go both ways.

Businesses will definitely be sued by people who wanted to carry guns onto an establishment, and were denied, and then suffered due to it.

But they will also be sued by people who claim they should have restricted guns on their property and did not.

Can I demand that you allow me to enter with my Molotov cocktail or provide me with security? Certainly not, this is ridiculous. Stop making the lives of private businesses harder than they already are. Obviously the theater owners did not want this, and it is silly to think they could have anticipated it.

[donnay]

http://www.newsandjava.com/holmsincourt3_20120723_114901.jpg

This guy looks like he is souped-up on something!

[king_nothing_]

I was just reading about the six year old that was killed and my first thought was why would someone take a six year old to a midnight showing of a violent PG13 movie? And how can they get them in? I see this as a seperate issue however, and suppose the libertarian position is that parents have a right to raise their children any way they choose? And the theatre has the right to enforce or not to enforce the rules? I am trying to learn here and appreciate any help I can get...
Yup. MPAA ratings aren't enforced by law. It's entirely the parents' and the theater's decision.

[AGRP]

Maybe this is all an elaborate promotion for the movie?

[Danke]

A constitutional right only restricts government actions. Private property owners are not beholden to the Constitution.

Can a private institution like a church endorse a religion on its own property? Sure, even though government cannot.

Similarly, private institutions are not required to uphold constitutional rights on their property. If I require you to strip naked to be checked for weapons before entering my house, that is within my rights. You have the right to choose not to enter my property.

That is the way we would like it to work. But just look at the Civil Rights Act for just one example of how businesses are regulated.

[nobody's_hero]

This will almost certainly go both ways.

Businesses will definitely be sued by people who wanted to carry guns onto an establishment, and were denied, and then suffered due to it.

But they will also be sued by people who claim they should have restricted guns on their property and did not.

Can I demand that you allow me to enter with my Molotov cocktail or provide me with security? Certainly not, this is ridiculous. Stop making the lives of private businesses harder than they already are. Obviously the theater owners did not want this, and it is silly to think they could have anticipated it.

Well, you could argue that I already make it harder on private businesses, since I do my best not to patronize businesses that have a vigorous stance against firearms on their property.

The fact is that businesses that take a dismissive approach to security actually do themselves in, eventually. I can name a number of theatres in the Middle Georgia area that went out of busniess due to crime and gang activity in the vicinity. Unfortunately, our state law does not permit carrying to 'public gatherings' (which is purposefully ambiguous as to the definition of a 'public gathering'), so you might say that it wasn't even the property owners' choices that caused their own decay.

Plus, I did mention that the business has a right to refuse entry from the start, so don't act like I'm being 'demanding'. If the owner is not willing or able to guarantee my safety, then let the cards fall where they may. I can't force him/her to let me in. It is the property owner's choice, and should be. But choices have consequences, and the consequences of no-gun policies are events like what this thread is based on.

[presence]

GOOD THING ITS ILLEGAL...


^^^^^