30 families sue Colorado Theater Owner

[JDG.]

So the theater was marked as no firearms allowed? How dare that gunman break the law. I think the theater should be closed for good or change the laws to protect the customers. There is usually one or two police present when I go to the movies but that don't scare bad guys. If responsible citizens carried out their 2nd ammendment right, I bet that catastrophe could have been a lot less tragic.

well their policy isn't law, its just their policy. The gunman did break the law but not because the movie theater said no guns.

This case could be big for pro 2nd amendment people if they win frivolous or not.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Yeah I don't get this suit at all. Where does it stop? How are you supposed to 'reasonably guard against mass shooting' Armed guards? With the multi screen theatres do you need an armed guard in every theatre? What about metal detectors?
I find it hard to believe this case will go anywhere but given the emotion behind it... who knows.
I am confident what will NOT come out of it is a federal judge stating his opinion "Had the owner of the business not explicitly prohibited lawful gun owners from carrying into his establishment he would not have been liable for the injuries sustained."

 

[JDG.]

but you knowingly enter

its the same as "swim at your own risk"

no business offers protection, they offer a product or service and have a duty to mitigate risk and can be held accountable for negligence. i dont think they can be held accountable for criminal acts

if you get pickpocketed in a theatre did they fail to protect you?

Thats what the courts are going to have to decide. Your analogy isnt quite correct thought.

This is more like swim at your own risk, but no pool floaties allowed in our pool either.

 

[chucklenut]

Thats what the courts are going to have to decide. Your analogy isnt quite correct thought.

This is more like swim at your own risk, but no pool floaties allowed in our pool either.

analogy still not right

more like "swim at your own risk, we will not protect you from pirates and skarks"

do theaters still issue warnings for epileptics?

 

[JDG.]

analogy still not right

more like "swim at your own risk, we will not protect you from pirates and skarks"

do theaters still issue warnings for epileptics?

Darn forgot about the sharks. Well they shouldnt be liable for the sharks, that is unless of course the sharks have friggen laser beams on their heads

 

[chucklenut]

Darn forgot about the sharks. Well they shouldnt be liable for the sharks, that is unless of course the sharks have friggen laser beams on their heads

lol i bet you holder wouldnt mind arming those sharks with laser beams

im waiting for bloombergs group to come out against friggin laser beams and their ease of access

 

[JDG.]

assault laser beams should be banned. If we ban the high capacity batteries they will run out of ammo

 

[GlockIssue]

Keep in mind that a federal court doesn't necessarily take a case because they are on the side of the plaintiff. Obviously I can only speculate, but they may be taking this case to set precedent in either direction. There has been a lot of stuff going on with OC demonstrations and certain businesses expressing where they stand with patrons carrying guns. If the court takes the side of the theater, it sets precedent for other businesses in that they have been backed by the courts when declaring their property as "gun free". And vice versa. I wouldn't be surprised if the court simply wants to show where they stand on this. Idk...I'm just throwing out my $0.02.

 

[GlockIssue]

assault laser beams should be banned. If we ban the high capacity batteries they will run out of ammo

"Normal" or "reasonable" laser beams are okay. It's the "assault" laser beams that should be banned. There's no reason for any civilian to need an "assault" laser beam.

 

[RamRoddoc]

well their policy isn't law, its just their policy. The gunman did break the law but not because the movie theater said no guns.

This case could be big for pro 2nd amendment people if they win frivolous or not.

Actually in specific cities in Colorado the city gun ordinance laws preempt state law. So the owner placing a sign at the entrance demanding to disarm carries the weight of law and the individual can be arrested and risk loss of gun rights not to mention the financial loss (legal fees, loss of property/gun, etc.)

I have been pointing this out for decades. The "claimed" purpose of "gun free zones" was to protect the public from "us". You know we shoot ourselves in the ass, monkey paw a pocket gun and pop some innocent in the head. However, where have signed "gun free" zones actually prevented murder or victimization? This is a false perception created from a bed of lies by educated idiots and promoted through the liberal anti-gun media.

And when it all goes horribly wrong, who gets blamed.....