30 families sue Colorado Theater Owner

[Springfield 1911]

ThTs the irony to me though. They're protecting FDIC insured money.

Some of it may be insured but some of it may not. I am pretty sure the FDIC was setup for the customer not the bank? I could be wrong. I am sure someone here knows the answer.

 

[Bear44]

Zackwy

Edit: With one caveat....only those people who were harmed but had the legal ability to be in possession of a means of self-defense (i.e. a firearm) but were denied that possession by the policy of the theater. That would put the responsibility of protection on the theater by them denying these people the right to protect themselves. The people who were not exercising the right to self-defense have no standing, IMO since the theaters policy did not lessen their own chosen level of protection.

Actually, the theater did lessen the deterrent level in general of an attack happening at all. This shooter passed up several other theaters and chose the closest one to his home that had a no gun policy. CC has been proven repeatedly to reduce violent crime in general and has much more of an effect than just giving an individual the ability to protect themselves.

On the other hand, no one is required to patronize any private business, so they are agreeing to the condition of no firearms allowed. What will be really interesting is when there is a law suit due to a mass shooting at a government building where people are required to go and must be unarmed. Say, a school. It's true you don't HAVE to send your kids to a public school, but you DO have to pay for public schools even if you choose not to use them.

 

[GlockIssue]

This shooter passed up several other theaters and chose the closest one to his home that had a no gun policy.

Have they been able to prove this? I hadn't heard this one. If so, it will be a leg to stand on for the families.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Banks provide armed security, court houses have armed security, sinces when does FDIC insured funds become more important to protect than human life? malls have armed security, airports have armed security, political figures have armed security, and I am sure there's more that do as well. Why exclude areas of high congregation? Would you be willing to pay a higher price knowing you're safety wasn't going to be compromised?

None of that security is for the 'customer'.

 

[MilSpec308]

None of that security is for the 'customer'.

That's the whole basis to my point..everybody has security to protect their own interest, why not the people?

 

[GeauxLSU]

Have they been able to prove this? I hadn't heard this one. If so, it will be a leg to stand on for the families.

It has been repeated often. Even if true (which I have no reason to doubt) PROVING that is why he chose that theatre, absent an admission, will be next to impossible and that is NOT the case the families are making I assure you. They want money and possible armed guards or metal detectors. They are NOT suiing for more carry rights. Does anyone in this thread honestly believe those families are looking to EXPAND carry rights?

 

[GeauxLSU]

That's the whole basis to my point..everybody has security to protect their own interest, why not the people?

You are preaching to the choir. That is not what the case is about.

 

[MilSpec308]

Some of it may be insured but some of it may not. I am pretty sure the FDIC was setup for the customer not the bank? I could be wrong. I am sure someone here knows the answer.

Any money coming from a bank is insured.

 

[ATLEMT]

You can NOT force a PRIVATE company to allow carry. Apparently y'all are forgetting that guns are evil (facts regarding victim disarmament zones don't matter). The case won't advance but if it does, and you REQUIRE a theatre to provide 'reasonable protection' against the one in 10 million (or more?) chance of a mass shooter, then more guards, metal dectors, bag searches, etc... are the likely outcome (and even higher prices), not MORE (evil) guns allowed. What jury in Colorado is going to say the owners were liable due to not having MORE guns allowed?

I don't think anyone is saying the courts can force buisness' to allow guns. They are saying that if the theater loses then other buisness' may rethink their policy to avoid a similar lawsuit in the future.

 

[MilSpec308]

You are preaching to the choir. That is not what the case is about.

That's why I am in favor of the suit and believe it will do good for the 2A community. This is only a foundation for those people being denied the right to SD in public places, now have a viable means through to courts.