Sometimes when people play stupid games, they get stupid prizes. That applies to filing faulty lawsuits.
Survivors of the July 20, 2012 theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado filed a federal suit against Cinemark Theaters seeking damages from the company after a mentally disturbed social misfit opened fire on opening night of a Batman movie, killing 12 and injuring 70. They claimed the theater chain’s lax security led to the spree killing, but a federal judge, applying the rule of law, decided otherwise.
The judge’s ruling left the four remaining plaintiffs on the hook for Cinemark’s $700,000 in legal bills, thanks to a Colorado loser-pays provision. A last-minute proposed settlement of $160,000 from Cinemark got derailed when a greedy plaintiff wanted more green.
Now the plaintiffs have themselves a tidy bill for $700,000. Some might call it karma.
Of course, the mainstream media – no friends of The People of The Gun – are writing that the victims of the tragedy are now victims once again, completely ignoring their culpability for the creative legal strategy they attempted to used to get themselves a payday.
Those plaintiffs sought to hold a movie theater responsible for the murderous rampage of a mental misfit who brought his guns into a theater that was posted as a “gun-free” zone and went berserk.
Those patrons should have known that the theater was at increased risk of bad things happening thanks to their wrong-headed and risky policy prohibiting card-carrying good guys with guns. Those “no guns” signs act like a dinner bell to lunatics, violent criminals and terrorists – just like the wack-o who opened fire in the theater in July of 2012.
Here’s the LA Times’ version of the story, featuring heartstring tugging and all:
Aurora massacre survivors sued. How did 4 end up owing the theater $700K?
DENVER — They had survived brain damage, paralysis and the deaths of their children. For four years, they met in secret as a group. Now, they were finally prepared to settle with the Aurora movie theater that became the site of one of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history.
Marcus Weaver kept a calm facade, but writhed with anxiety within. His dreams often return him to the theater, the sounds of gunshots and the feeling of his friend’s lifeless body slumped against him. After he escaped, he found a bullet hole in his shoulder.
On a conference call, the federal judge overseeing the case told the plaintiffs’ attorneys that he was prepared to rule in the theater chain’s favor. He urged the plaintiffs to settle with Cinemark, owner of the Century Aurora 16 multiplex where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred. They had 24 hours.
But before that deadline, the settlement would collapse and four survivors of the massacre would be ordered to pay the theater chain more than $700,000.
“Sometimes when people play stupid games, they get stupid prizes.”
So true.
I will be stealing, and using, that quote.
Probably very often as I reside in Flori-duh.
Surprises me when people complain about Florida and yet people keep moving here.
Very often Yankee retirement home types who move here due to a lack of income tax.
Then they sit around and complain about all the things NOT being done for them.
As far as I can tell, the borders of Florida are open. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Same here, Clear Thru.
I think Colorado’s “loser pays” provision is an awesome idea. No more can someone take a no-risk gamble for a huge payday at someone else’s expense. How do I get this implemented in my state?
Most states have similar laws. Which is your state?
Just a guess, but maybe Florida.
Florida has one.
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world it does not work out that way. Historically, and across the entire U.S. the average hovers around 80 percent for lawsuit “winners” who fail to collect ANY money. Out of that 20 percent some only collect part of their “reward”. Depending on the particular state’s law (and the presiding judge), lawsuit awards can/may be included as part of a bankruptcy filing as well. Also, many/most states have tables that calculate a monetary threshold of living (income) that a person gets to have/keep before any money he owes can be garnished. Translation: if people are poor enough they do not have to pay.
Even where this provision exists it does not have the deterrent effect you want. People try it all the time and lose (like in this case). Even for states that don’t have the provision the defendant can counter sue before or after a verdict is rendered and possibly “win” money . . . yet people engage in sketchy lawsuits. Last, you are dealing with grieving family members here and they do not always exercise the best judgement.
I used to work for a lawyer in consumer litigation. You are technically right about the number of lawsuits, but you are (perhaps purposely) confusing two separate issues.
When a dodgy debtor defaults on a debt, the account is handed to collections. Debtors ignore collections typically, so then it can go to a lawyer. The lawyer asks for around $600 to file suit in county court, and usually obtains a default judgment–I.E. the creditor wins by default because the dodgy debtor declines to show up and dispute.
This does comprise the majority of lawsuits, but the person getting sued deserves it 99% of the time, and plaintiff files suit trying to recover their money.
We are not talking about these suits, and I’m 90% sure you knew that. We are talking about lawyers with nothing better to do working on commission, and harassing businesses with money. Ambulance chasers.
Most civilized countries on the earth have some kind of loser-pays provision. It is not the idea that everyone can easily pay back the other side, but rather that the party who was in-the-right does not end up with money out of pocket.
I’m fully comfortable putting the burden of proof on the lawyer to show that the client had enough money to reimburse the other side. Otherwise the lawyer is just gambling with someone else’s money. Of course, this requirement could be lifted if the parties would put money on the table as they went like it was a poker game.
The amount of damage that one idiot and his lawyer can do is immense, and every consumer on the market pays for their sins. There has to be a balancing force to keep the greed in check, and that is personal risk inherent in a loser-pays system.
Laws are worthless unless the penalties are enforceable; with the likelihood of bankruptcy preventing the reimbursement of those much-deserved legal fees, I believe the addition of a performance bond requirement is a practical remedy. If the plaintiff wants to litigate against another party, having to purchase a $500K surety with personal property securing the bond is the easiest way to discourage ill-advised litigation – similar to posting bail – although it was recently ruled that bail is no longer a lawful practice, believe it or not.
I am not, nor have I ever been an attorney. Just someone with an occasional brilliant thought, and always plenty of practical ones – interspersed with humorous anecdotes.
Can’t say I feel sorry for them. They were imprudent, twice.
Let that be a lesson to you, those of the mind numbingly stupid “If the business doesn’t let me carry a firearm, then the business must assume full responsibility for my every conceivable aspect of my security against evildoers” school of (non)thought.
No-guns signs don’t protect you from killers, but neither do no-guns signs do commit the murders. Killers do the killing, which is kinda sorta why they’re called “killers.”
If you determine your safety is at risk from a private business’ foolish no-guns sign, like I do, then don’t go there. But don’t demand that government step in to rewrite, by force, in your favor, the agreement the private business is willing to make, that of serving you while deciding their own gun policy on their property.
It’s not a private agreement when the sign carries the force of law. If “no gun” signs had no legal backing this would be a non-issue. The business got the government involved when they hold a government gun to the heads of their customers to force them to disarm.
In a place where the “no guns” signs don’t cary the force of law, I would cary anyway and dare the hoplophobes to make a scene.
pwrserge,
Jonathan is claiming that there is an implied contract to enter private property. In this case the implied contract specifically includes a provision regarding firearms (requirement to be unarmed). If such a contract were legitimate and enforceable, then it would be appropriate for a government court to enforce the contract. Remember, one of the primary functions of government is enforcing contracts.
My counter-argument to Jonathan (below) is that the provision of the contract that bans firearms is not legitimate nor enforceable. If the contract were legitimate and enforceable, then it would be appropriate for government to enforce the contract.
The ticket probably has a liability limitation for injuries caused BY the theater. A bad rug on the stairs or a shard of glass in the popcorn is the theaters fault. But an invasion by a killer isn’t a threat the theater created.
Despite the fact that the theater No Guns policy made the attack more likely it was not an expected threat such as fire.
Jim Macklin,
“But an invasion by a killer isn’t a threat the theater created.”
Agree.
“Despite the fact that the theater No Guns policy made the attack more likely it was not an expected threat such as fire.”
Disagree wholeheartedly. There are more than a million violent crimes reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States every year … and they happen everywhere. There are nowhere near a million building fires in the United States every year … much less in commercial buildings. If a commercial building is supposed to anticipate the extremely uncommon threat of a fire, why would they not be compelled to anticipate a much more common threat such as violent crime? At the very least, why would they not be compelled to NOT interfere with people’s ability to respond to a violent crime since violent crimes are orders of magnitude more common than commercial building fires?
My Solution – A warning letter to the businesses that have ‘No Guns Allowed’ signs posted:
SUBJECT: Your ‘NO FIREARMS ALLOWED’ Policy
~ The State of California arbitrarily took away my inalienable constitutional right to carry a firearm and required me get a CCW permit in order to do so which I did. Now you have arbitrarily again taken away my legal and constitutional right to protect myself and/or my family and/or guests from criminals intent on bringing harm to me and/or my family and/or my guests and/or my/our property on your premises. California law gave you the ‘OPTION’ to ban or not to ban firearms; not a law REQUIRING you to ban legally concealed firearms. You have decided of your own free will to institute the ‘No Guns Allowed’ option which effectively releases the State of California from any and all liability of the consequences of your free-will decision.
~ This is your notice that I WILL hold you liable in a court of law if I and/or any member of my family are robbed and/or harmed in any way while walking from our vehicle (where I left my firearm in order to comply with your ‘No Guns Allowed’ policy) OR on your premises OR when returning to my vehicle OR if I am refused service in retaliation of your receiving this written notice from me. This notice is my one time notification to you and is effective immediately and does not expire for all of your business locations and whenever I and my family members and guests that accompany me when I frequent your establishments in the future. Having to leave my gun in the car makes me vulnerable walking to and from your establishment.
~ Definition of the words ‘you’ and ‘your’: You personally and/or your company and/or your board members and/or your management personnel and/or your officers and/or your employees.
(NAME and driver’s license number)
That might just get you banned for life from the theater. This guy got banned just for complaining about the high cost of snacks on social media:
http://www.yourohiovalley.com/story/29351498/social-media-posts-gets-man-banned-from-movie-theater-for-life
Just being private property should be enough for them to require disarmament as a condition for entry if they so desire. This private property is a “public accommodation” if they buy or sell something there is BS.
They can “require” it all they want. I’m also free to tell them to go fuck themselves. In Colorado, since the signs don’t carry the force of law, I would carry anyway.
Me being on someone’s private property does not hand them ownership of me. What I have on my person is my business, not theirs. A legal fiction about real estate is not grounds for interfering with my rights to life and liberty.
No gun signs do not carry the force of law in Colorado.
Jonathan,
You never answered my previous question that I have posed twice now: how can a privately owned business be civilly and criminally liable for failing to provide fire protection (sprinklers, extinguishers, adequate exits, exit signs, emergency lighting) when you claim that a business can do whatever they want, can impose any terms that they want, and patrons enter the business at their own risk?
And take that a step further: would that same privately owned business face no civil or criminal liability if they failed to install fire protection measure AND PROHIBITED PATRONS from bringing their own fire extinguishers and flashlights?
(Note that I am referring to what is decent, righteous, and noble rather than the track record of our courts.)
The reason that a business faces civil and criminal liability in my examples is because they cannot foster a dangerous environment … that would be indecent and an insult to our human dignity. Private property does not empower the private property owner to endanger the life and well being of visitors, guests, and patrons.
Are you still struggling to believe me? Look up the legal doctrine that bans an “attractive nuisance”. That legal doctrine requires a fence around a tower or in-ground pool to help prevent curious children from dying at those locations. How can that be if a private property owner is empowered to do anything they want and disregard the lives of other people?
I’m not a lawyer or anything, so here’s just my .02:
Let’s put the existing legalities aside, and discuss the moralities behind a proper, decent piece of legislation.
I don’t think a cinema that does not take proper precautions against fire, AND disallows the patrons to do so, should take the blame if there is a fire and the patrons die. The only moral obligation (and legal obligation if I get to make the law myself) I see here, is that the cinema should be fully disclosing all the facts.
The major point that I would contend is how necessary a behaviour is, to a person’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If it’s not necessary, I do not think it’s moral to obligate a property owner to make way for such behaviours, burdening their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (owning that property should give them a higher order of rights).
Entering a cinema is not a necessity (many more things to do). Entering this particular cinema is not a necessity (competitor’s cinemas could be fire-proof). Trespassing onto private property, unauthorised, and falling into an unprotected pool, is not a necessity (parents, go to jail).
The reason why the Bill of Rights, is imposed upon the govt, is that no one in the country can escape from the Big Brother. However, most private properties, are by no means such a thing.
On the flip side, private companies that hold monopoly (or duopoly or whatever) over critical functions of the society (telecom, petroleum…), should be more regulated than one cinema among a bazillion in downtown NYC. As the lack of their service greatly damages everyone’s lives, and near-free, near-open market competition is pratically impossible.
Again, just my .02 and my effort to balance everyone’s interest. You are free to differ.
IANAL, but as I understand it, a theater or other place of business failing to take due precautions against fire could be held liable for some form of negligence.
Going into a theater or other private business is not mandatory, but it is reasonable to expect from a proprietor that it not be any more hazardous than necessary for the activity.
A business is held liable for customer injuries under the same theory a driver would be held liable for passenger injuries if he simply ignored all traffic signals and drove 80 mph down a city street. Injuries are avoided only as long as dumb luck intervenes. Each one is failing to exercise the reasonable caution and regard for others a reasonable person would undertake, the resulting harm is foreseeable, and attributable to that failure.
When I was in college we had a campus carry movement, the president of which debated the school’s police chief. The school is in a pretty nasty neighborhood, and lots of strong-arm robberies happen around there and you can hear gunshots almost every night. I asked the police chief why, if it’s a “gun-free zone,” there no metal detectors or armed police officers ensuring that armed criminals never get into any buildings, like what happened 10 years ago when a disgruntled Master’s student brought in a MAC-11. He had no real answer for this, and tried to assure us we needed more security cameras outdoors (there were no cameras in any buildings there). Sure enough a couple armed thugs robbed the housing office the summer after I left.
Under truly objective scrutiny, if you post signs making a GFZ, you should not only ensure that no guns get in, but have armed security to respond to any threats inside the GFZ you have created. Essentially a GFZ is a micro-police state, and therein lies the problem with them. Do not play the left-wingers’ game, because it’s a lose-lose for everybody but the referees (the statist politicians).
They should have gotten better lawyers and/or listened to the ones they had. Competent legal representation would have told them this was a possibility. They rolled the dice and lost big time. I heard on the news the theater chain will not go after them for the $700,000 if they sign a paper agreeing not to appeal. If they have half a brain among them, they will take that deal and walk away.
While I think better security and/or allowing legal carry MIGHT have made a difference, there was no cause and effect. The one thing I think the theater should have been culpable for: When the gunman went out the side door and propped it open, that should have triggered an alarm. That is a pretty standard fire-door set up. At least people would have been on a higher level of alert with an alarm going off.
“They should have gotten better lawyers and/or listened to the ones they had. Competent legal representation would have told them this was a possibility.”
Yep. And if their lawyers didn’t advise them that this could happen, they should sue the lawyers for malpractice.
“Yep. And if their lawyers didn’t advise them that this could happen, they should sue the lawyers for malpractice.”
Yep, they aught to, but if they’re smart, they won’t.
If the lose, they’ll get clocked with those legal bills, as well.
What I have a tough time wrapping my head around is *why*, when the judge told them he would rule against them, would they refuse the settlement?
The only thing that makes sense is that their legal bills were already well over $160,000, and if they were already poor, that they thought they had nothing to lose. The ‘ole blood-and-rock analogy…
Found this:
“Cinemark’s offer, the Times reported, was $150,000 to be split among 41 plaintiffs, with the three most critically injured to each receive $30,000. The remaining 38 would equally split the remaining $60,000…. But one plaintiff, turned down the deal. Others followed, with 37 plaintiffs eventually withdrawing themselves from the case.”
At a glance this suggests the plaintiffs would be close to a “break even” for their legal costs. (Assume the $160 K was the total bill.)
I agree, door security just makes sense, if only for control and prevention of people sneaking in to watch the movie without paying the ticket price. One person could buy a ticket and go to the backdoor and let 100 in without paying. The business has an interest in doing that.
Here in te State of Kansas we passed our first version of concealed carry in 2006 and issued the first licenses January 2, 2007. Since then Kansas has improved the law every year. We ratified a revised State Bill of Rights in 2010 which clearly made the right to armed self-defense plain.
Kansas now has Constitutional carry. Eighteen year olds not prohibited by criminal record may carry openly and twenty-one year olds may carry openly or concealed without a license. The CCH license is still available for those who want to travel out of state and those who want to skip the FFL having to call for a NICS check.
College carry will be allowed in a few months, the colleges were given time to make arrangements. Public, government owned buildings are required to allow carry unless thay have adequate security to guarantee the safety of citizens.
It isn’t perfect but it is more than was hoped for back in 2006. If you have the money to comply with 1934 NFA you can own, shoot and hunt with suppressors and own and shoot machine guns but hunting isn’t allowed with your M134.
Now if Illinois would allow non-residents from any State to apply for a non-resident license or the better solution, a national reciprocity law, to force the States that violate the the law by denying the legal actions of other states. A Marriage license from any state is recognized in every other state for a reason.
I would still like to see a suit filed claiming a gun-free zone owner to have created a ‘special duty’ for failure to protect his customers after disarming them.
Kansas has created such a law in public, government owned buildings.
Interestingly, Colorado is not listed as a “loser pays” state at all. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/loser-pays-system-states.html
And, as usual, I don’t see any state where the “loser pays” is a straight up deal for every – or even most lawsuits. It’s a lawyer’s game, like everything else. And whatever Colorado actually does about this, it obviously didn’t discourage a frivolous lawsuit in this case.
Perhaps if the “loser pays” law made the lawyers responsible for half of the fees, it would have more bite. A few lawyers lose their shirts with frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits, and maybe the rest would think twice before taking such a case.
Yep , whatever percentage the lawyers where going to take for the winnings should be the perecentage they owe if they lose. That would make a real change. But of coarse since the laws are made by lawyers aint no chance in hell thats gonna happen.
That’s exactly what I was thinking! The actual lawyers should have to pay at minimum a ‘reverse’ fee. Same percentage as what they would have ‘won’. Better, 50 – 60%. That would put a damper on frivolous lawsuits.
Fear of being found frivolous didn’t stop the Brady Bunch from hiring parents and talking them into suing FFLs for lawfully selling ammunition, either:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/robert-farago/we-lost-our-daughter-to-a-mass-shooter-and-now-owe-203000-to-his-ammo-dealer-and/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/colo-shooting-victim-parents-broke-suing-gun-seller-article-1.2583138
They did have a point>zero security at Batman. You takes yer’ chances…however the author has a really nasty tone which is unneeded. I do like “loser pays the bill” though. THAT would eliminate lots of lawsuits-frivolous or not.
Yeah what happened to This sentiment?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/02/robert-farago/gun-free-zones-who-is-liable/
“… the federal judge overseeing the case told the plaintiffs’ attorneys that he was prepared to rule in the theater chain’s favor. He urged the plaintiffs to settle with Cinemark … where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred.”
How in the Hell does that work? I thought the incentive of settling a lawsuit was based on the risk of an undesirable outcome and not knowing what outcome to expect. In this case the judge told the plaintiffs what to expect. What gives?
I wondered about that too. Maybe that’s why the settlement fell apart.
The unknown is often enough to get someone to settle. But here, the case was a dead-bang loser. How could a movie theater be liable for one of the worst mass shootings in history? What security guard would stop that guy? It’s a ridiculous case that should never have been filed, but for someone’s anti-gun agenda.
So the judge tried to give the about-to-be losers a head’s up that they were about to lose, hopefully to give them a chance to have a come-to-jesus conversation with their attorneys, and in order to give them the opportunity to settle for a few bucks and avoid the “penalty” of having him rule against them. It’s a good-guy thing to do, because parties to lawsuits often make decisions without benefit of a clear thought process. These people just didn’t heed the warning.
I suspect the judge thought he was going to be a nice guy and warn them that they were about to lose the case. Future lawyers, take note: if you ever get lucky enough to have a judge tell you beforehand that you’re going to lose, run, don’t walk, to the other side and take whatever settlement you can get.
It still amazes me how some folks live in a altered reality.
Unaware how life works.
No Guns signs are not backed by extra penalties at this sort of location in Colorado, generally speaking. Several of certain conditions have to be met, such as 24 hour security, metal Detectors, a policy against firearms (a policy against them in the absence of other things does not carry a criminal penalty). In the majority of cases, all you can be charged with is trespassing due to violating the private property owner’s policies and failing to leave when instructed. Excepting of course elementary and high schools, as well as government buildings. At any rate, you take your chances whenever you walk out your door. “Safety” is an illusion, usually propped up by a whole bunch of other people’s hard work. Now, I have argued that there is a moral obligation, if a private person or business wishes people disarmed, to provide an equal or greater level of security. Of course that’s often impossible. But a legal obligation? That would be a denial of property rights, which is one of the points of the second amendment anyway so…. Personally, I have no issue with a business which chooses to have a no Guns policy. That’s their prerogative; I just don’t patronize them. And for my own part, yes there are people who I wouldn’t trust to be armed on my own property. I wouldn’t let them come by unarmed and sedated anyway. I agree, the author does Come off a little harsh. I fail to see a problem with that. Your safety is *your* responsibility. It always has been and always will be. Anyone who thinks differently is either a child, and therefore correct, or a fool who has no business reproducing much less being free to malign and cause financial harm to persons and businesses, when they should really be angry at themselves for making asinine assumptions about what constitutes a safe space. You want a safe space? My basement may qualify. Unless there’s a fire…that could be unpleasant.
“No Guns signs are not backed by extra penalties at this sort of location in Colorado, generally speaking. Several of certain conditions have to be met, such as 24 hour security, metal Detectors, a policy against firearms (a policy against them in the absence of other things does not carry a criminal penalty). In the majority of cases, all you can be charged with is trespassing due to violating the private property owner’s policies and failing to leave when instructed. Excepting of course elementary and high schools, as well as government buildings. ”
Close.
In Colorado, someone with a recognized (either CO or one of the states CO recognizes) permit to carry a concealed handgun may carry “in all areas of the state”, except as specified by statute. The statute (CRS 18-12-214) lists these exceptions:
* places prohibited by federal law
* in general, on the grounds of a K-12 school (though there are some exceptions where you can carry at a school)
* public buildings where security personnel and electronic screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building, security personnel electronically screen each person entering to see if he’s carrying a weapon of any kind, and security personnel require each person entering to leave the weapon in the possession of the security personnel while the person is in the building.
The “security personnel and electronic screening devices” exception applies to public buildings. It does not apply to private property.
For private property, the only thing that applies is the state trespass statutes. The one that applies to an entity that is normally open to the public is CRS 18-4-504 (third degree criminal trespass). In order to be guilty of that offense, you must unlawfully enter or remain upon the premises of another. CRS 18-4-201 says that, for ” premises that are at the time open to the public”, an order to not enter or remain must be “personally communicated”. A sign on the door addressed to everyone who might look at the door is not a personal communication.
I live in Colorado. I have a Colorado permit to carry a concealed handgun. I lawfully carry into movie theaters and other private establishments all the time – whether or not there’s a sign on the door. I also lawfully carry into [non-Federal] government buildings – as long as there’s no security and electronic screening. I lawfully carry when I pick up my kids at the public elementary and middle schools (my gun doesn’t leave my vehicle, but I usually don’t, either).
Yeah I know. It just always seems like a pointlessly long explanation trying to define the specifics of gun laws. Here, but not here. Here, but not like this. Like, this, but not here. Also go screw yourself if you live in denver, or Silverthorne, blah blah blah. Whatever. I suppose at least it isn’t California.
At least the list of places we can’t carry (concealed, with a permit) is pretty short and straightforward: public buildings that screen for weapons, federal buildings and military bases, and K-12 schools. We don’t have to worry about hospitals, churches, bars, restaurants, other businesses, etc.
Theater owes them nothing. The theater had nothing to do with actions of the shooter. Sole responsibility lies with the shooter.
This is Hillary style blaming. Similar to her idea that manufacturers of firearms should be responsible for what people do with those firearms.
The judge even gave them a heads up on it apparently. Bird in hand still worth 2 in the bush.
Here in Colorado that sign carries no weight. IF they catch you they can ask you to leave. IF you refuse you can be hit with a trespass charge, but you can be asked to leave for a lot of reasons and charged with trespass for refusal.
The only enforceable GFZ’s under Colorado law are Courthouses, Federal Buildings and locations using magnetometers to enforce the GFZ (major sporting events for example). Other than these locations a GFZ sign is meaningless.
Ah… Therein lies the rub. Given that, you’re right, they had no case. Unfortunately, in the People’s Demokratic Republik of Chiraqistan… You’re more likely to go to jail for carrying a licensed gun somewhere you shouldn’t than for actually shooting somebody.
Even if CCW was illegal there it wouldn’t matter. The guy propped open an emergency exit that had no outer door handle, left the movie and returned “Dressed to Kill”. WTF did these people want, an armed guard at every emergency exit?
And I ask that apparently uncivilized question having had friends die and be wounded in this shooting. How close I was to it at the time is a bit crazy (1000m give or take) to me and the fact that I lived less than a par 5 hole away from the shooter is even more crazy.
When a business posts a NO GUN sign that should be a red flag to anyone who goes there. A NO GUN sign just provides a false sense of security to the ignorant patron (and yes, their probably liberal anti-gun patrons). Enter at your own risk.
Theres more in comirado
– K12 School
– No unlicensed carry in denver (open carry ban)
– Loadet weapon on snowmobile
And this
Note:
There have been reports
that those with a
valid permit can’
t carry on Public Transportation (Buses)
in
Colorado
.
Carry is allowed on public transportation if you have a valid permit. Your valid permit is “Legal
Authority
.”
18
–
9
–
118
. Firearms
, Explosives, o
r In
cendiary Devices In Facilities o
f Public Transportation
A person commits a class 6 felony if, without legal authority, he has any loaded firearm or e
xplosive or
incendiary device, as defined in
section
9
–
7
–
103
, C.R.S., in his possession in, or carries, brings, or causes to
be carried or brought any of such items into, any facility of public
transportation, as defined in
section
18
–
9
–
115 (4)
.
History
:
Source:. L. 77: Entire section added, p. 976, § 7, effective June 29.L. 89: Entire section amended,
p. 841, § 89,
effective July 1.
____________________________________
Note:
Denver International Airport (DIA) has signs posted at the entrance of the Terminal stating:
It is a FELONY OFFENSE for any person without legal authority to bring a loaded fir
earm or
explosive or incendiary divice into the airport or aboard a commercial aircraft. Violators may be
sentenced to five years imprisonment a fine of $10.000 or both.
Those with a valid permit/license can carry into the airport but not into the steril
e areas of the airport. Your
valid permit/license is your legal authority.
The only reference to firearms in the DIA Rules/Regulations
states a Permit/License holder can’t carry into secure areas of the airport. Secure areas would be past the
TSA security
checkpoint and anywhere
else
in the terminal
or grounds
off limits to passengers
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf
be carefule
A no gun sign does not have the power of law in Colorado. It’s no different than a “No shirt, no shoes, no service” sign. You can’t get into legal trouble for simply for ignoring the sign and entering the business, but if they ask you to leave and you don’t, they can file trespassing charges.
Pretty stupid. When suing, go where the money is. Here’s an idea:
Sue the federal government for the whole idea of gun free zones in the first place.
You’re welcome!
Just my opinion but when someone or a business owner “doesn’t like guns” it’s flat out wrong for them to force people to decide whether to avoid the UNSECURED LOCATION or chance having what happened in that movie theater happen to them.
Besides, when it comes to risk like second hand smoke (exposure) there are no fact-based rules at all. The assumption is that “any exposure” is endangering lives. This is despite the fact that just about all substances have to be classified as to the risk of exposure – giving duration and concentration levels which are obtained by MEASURING. EXCEPT cigarette smoke. This is why people can complain to the local health authority when they even IMAGINE they’ve been “exposed” and the local health authority then has the power of judges, juries and police when they take action against the “wrong doer(s).”
The real reason people can’t sue when they’ve been shot at in a “gun free zone” created (willy-nilly by whim) a business is because businesses buy legislators and get the laws they want passed in legislatures. Meanwhile – the public goes about their business TRUSTING that legislators will protect their best interests AND the state and federal constitutions. WRONG
What’s that word Trump keeps using?…. Oh yeah, RIGGED.
Well… yep. Similarly stupid efforts: suing firearms manufacturers for murder committed with their guns. Why not knife manufacturers? Or Nike, when someone is kicked to death by someone wearing their shoes? Or car manufacturers in deliberate (or why not accidental?) vehicular manslaughter. Some people are incapable of extending their arguments to logical conclusions and seeing the absurdity. I admit this has absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiffs argument in this case, but the article pissed me off and I wanted to rant.
Colorado is not a “loser pay state.” Briefly – the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party may offer a settlement of $X. If the other party refuses to settle, and the litigation is resolved in either the offeree’s favor or a verdict is returned for <$X, the non-settling party is responsible for the offeree's attorney's fees. See FRCP 68.
One . . . if a venue is a “Gun Free Zone” they should be liable to provide adequate protection for the patrons under any Duty of Care consideration.
Two, no one is forced to go to a venue that will not allow you to defend yourself or to not carry if they do.
They have to pay for the murderers!!
Didn’t TN recently pass a law that says if a business puts up a no guns sign, the business IS responsible for security being put in place to protect the patrons of the business?
Comments are closed.