30 families sue Colorado Theater Owner

[GeauxLSU]

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that suing a place that denied the right to self defense resulting in mass death, and challenging the "gun free zones" as a whole to be blinded by affinity for the 2A? As a supporter of the 2A, don't you feel that people denying rights to SD should be responsible for providing the very principal they're denying? Or should they only be granted the right to defend themselves and leave others to be sheep amidst the wolves?

I must be speaking Greek.... they are NOT suing to allow people the right to SD. You guys are projecting your WANTS trying to make them reality.
Again, they are suiing for MONEY under the premise that the COMPANY didn't PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION. No where is there any hint that allowing MORE guns by customers will be brought up (except possibly by the DEFENSE). If they DID allow carry the lawsuit would STILL be taking place.

 

[MilSpec308]

I believe he's trying to tell us that the "gun free zone" will not necessarily be used by the Plaintiff to further their case. He's saying that the Defendants will mention it to try to prove that they made a solid attempt to keep the place safe. In that many people believe allowing legal gun owners to carry is unsafe. I think he's saying that the Plaintiffs will more than likely use the lack of security guards, pat downs, or metal detectors to further their case. Not the "gun free" zone. I don't really disagree with him, but he's still calling me blind. However, I do have a feeling the "gun free zone" aspect will come into play at some point. It will all depend on how the case is ruled and how much the "gun free" aspect is highlighed within that ruling.

I think any 2A supporter that hasn't been waiting for a case like this to be brought on full force is blinded by affinity.

 

[MilSpec308]

I must be speaking Greek.... they are NOT suing to allow people the right to SD. You guys are projecting your WANTS trying to make them reality.
Again, they are suiing for MONEY under the premise that the COMPANY didn't PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION. No where is there any hint that allowing MORE guns by customers will be brought up (except possibly by the DEFENSE). If they DID allow carry the lawsuit would STILL be taking place.

Rightfully so, they should be compensated monetarily. How do you know the case would still be taking place if they could carry?

 

[GeauxLSU]

And once the defense tries to use it to their advantage, how would the plaintiffs rebut? I'm blinded? I don't think so bud. As I said before, it will come down to what the courts highlight the most in their ruling. It's very possible that the "gun free" zone isn't highlighted in favor of the plaintiff or even highlighted at all. In that case, it will not effect the policy of other businesses in regards to having a "gun free" zone. I have recognized this the whole time. How is that being blinded?

I said you are blinded by the 2A and common sense. "The courts" and the people of Colorado, do not share the same view. Clearer now?

 

[GlockIssue]

I must be speaking Greek.... they are NOT suing to allow people the right to SD. You guys are projecting your WANTS trying to make them reality.
Again, they are suiing for MONEY under the premise that the COMPANY didn't PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION. No where is there any hint that allowing MORE guns by customers will be brought up (except possibly by the DEFENSE). If they DID allow carry the lawsuit would STILL be taking place.

I agree with you. But there's nothing wrong with hoping that this case will further our 2A support. You're a party pooper!

*EDIT: I'm name calling and forgot to show my playfulness with a smiley. So here you go ...

 

[sparked1]

If the theater did NOT have a "no guns" policy at the time, it would probably be used AGAINST them in this case for failing to have protected their patrons from "gun violence". The premise of the case is based solely on the theater's lack of security, not on their policy-induced suppression of individual carry rights. There is no way to prove in a court of law (beyond theory) that having allowed conceal carry would've prevented the attack or perhaps lessened the severity, whereas, proving gross negligence on the part of the theater is likely more plausible.

About the only positive I see that may arise from this is conversation and questioning of so called gun-free "safe" zones.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Rightfully so, they should be compensated monetarily. How do you know the case would still be taking place if they could carry?

Because it's about money. I'm still waiting for anyone to list one fact that gives even a hint this case has anything, at all, to do with carry rights.

 

[GeauxLSU]

If the theater did NOT have a "no guns" policy at the time, it would probably be used AGAINST them in this case for failing to have protected their patrons from "gun violence". The premise of the case is based solely on the theater's lack of security, not on their policy-induced suppression of individual carry rights. There is no way to prove in a court of law (beyond theory) that having allowed conceal carry would've prevented the attack or perhaps lessened the severity, whereas, proving gross negligence on the part of the theater is likely more plausible.

THANK YOU! I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand (unless there are some facts about the plantiffs' case no one is willing to present.)

 

[GlockIssue]

I said you are blinded by the 2A and common sense. "The courts" and the people of Colorado, do not share the same view. Clearer now?

Ah sorry, I take it back. My apologies, sir. I thought you were getting all feisty. Carry on...

 

[GeauxLSU]

I agree with you. But there's nothing wrong with hoping that this case will further our 2A support. You're a party pooper!

*EDIT: I'm name calling and forgot to show my playfulness with a smiley. So here you go ...

Sometimes being a realist is a party pooper.
Speaking of carry rights, did you send a note to Kroger yet?