“Operators of the Aurora theater where 12 moviegoers were slain this summer had no security guards on duty the night of the shootings,” denverpost.com reports, “and no plans for keeping anyone from sneaking out of or back into the theater, according to two new lawsuits filed Friday.” So the victims of the midnight movie massacre are suing Cinemark for not protecting its patrons from a crazed spree killer. “Readily available security procedures, security equipment and security personnel would likely have prevented or deterred the gunman from accomplishing his planned assault on the theater’s patrons,” judge turned ambulance chaser, I mean attorney Christina Habas asserted in a press release. And that meant . . .
Any person who wished to make a surreptitious and unauthorized entry into the theater could easily determine that the lack of security personnel and lack of any alarm on the door at the right, front by the screen of (the) auditorium would allow them to leave the theater, and re-enter without fear of being discovered, interfered with, monitored or stopped.
Not mentioned (as far as I can tell): the fact that Cinemark is a gun-free zone.
Writing for foxnews.com, John “Death by Stats” Lott recently highlighted the fact that “out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, [Cinemark Century 16 Theater] was the only one where guns were banned.”
It would be something of a legal stretch to suggest that banning guns from private property constitutes criminal negligence but I sure as hell would like to see someone try.
Private property and government agency alike: if you take steps to disarm people in your area of responsibility and fail to provide absolut security for those people you should be held accountable for what befalls them.
Civil and criminal actions for your failure to protect those you knowingly disarmed should be part of the consaquences.
that is basically what i was going to say.
The obvious counter to that is nobody forced them to go to the theater.
To be sure, but it was a public space where the patrons were not allowed to protect themselves. That puts the burden of protection on the owner of the property. This is not like a private home. It’s a space where public business is invited.
My counter to the counter would be that by virtue of advertising and signage, a request for people to enter is made and a safe environment is implied.
If a business doesn’t t want to invest in security measures, the gun buster signs need to come down.
Simple test. Can they decide not to serve people based on the color of their skin?
If yes (private clubs, private homes, etc.), fine.
If not, then they are a “public place”, and they assume a certain amount of responsibility for the consequences of their rules.
Heath is probably right about the obvious counter-argument, but I’d love to see the case play out just so more people would realize how ridiculous any claims of “you don’t have to worry, the government/police/rent-a-cop will protect you” actually are.
“I’d love to see the case play out just so more people would realize how ridiculous any claims of “you don’t have to worry, the government/police/rent-a-cop will protect you” actually are.”
The best part of that scenario is that faced with spending a ton of money installing security devices and/or hiring staff vs simply allowing people to carry guns, most businesses would take the cheapest option which would be to allow people to carry guns.
Lets see: Spend tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands if you think salary) on security measures that aren’t guaranteed to work anyway… and you STILL might get sued,
OR
Simply allow people to defend themselves for free.
I know which one I’d go with.
But if one of their patrons gets shot by another patron with a gun, they’ll get sued for not disarming their customers or for not prohibiting CCW. Either way, they lose.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
If a company chooses to take away my ability to defend myself, then the company should assume the responsibilty for my defense. Cinemark did not do that. Therefore the company was grossly negligent and should be forced to pay for that negligence.
I don’t see this as a “legal stretch” at all, just common sense. I take it back – common sense would be a legal stretch.
By the way, the Aurora Cinemark Century 16 Theater was only one theater in a large company franchise. They were only following the company policy of Cinemark. So the lawsuit should be, and is, directed at the larger franchise company.
Good point. Headline amended.
“If a company chooses to take away my ability to defend myself, then the company should assume the responsibilty for my defense.”
I just KNEW that the levels of hypocrisy on this board would go through the roof after I read this post.
So you are quite happy with the TSA and how they conduct themselves then? You are quite happy being anally probed every time you go into a shop, cinema, or any other kind of establishment? And to say nothing of the personal violations, how about the burden that would place on every single business? The costs would be prohibitive, and I thought the right wing was supposed to be the party of personal rights and business friendly!
If you are unhappy with an establishment banning weapons on its premises, as is its constitutional right, then just don’t go there. Period. Sadly for you gun nuts you don’t make enough of an impact on any local economy for 99.9% of companies to give a damn about you and your mall ninja desire to always be armed – and that is exactly the kind of free market and individual choice that you claim to support in action.
The lawsuit against the movie theater is just as stupid as is the fact that the theater doesn’t allow its patrons the right to legally protect themselves, and just as stupid as all the calls to blame the people that sold this nut case the weapons and ammo.
There’s only one person to blame for the shooting…… the shooter.
Winner!
But it would be nice to see civil damages cause some of these companies to rethink their policy on gun free zones.
In a world of personal responsibility and private property, it is up to you to determine whether or not to risk seeing a movie in a gun-free zone. The odds are in your favor – a shooting like this IS in fact a very rare event. I would and do take the risk myself. Unfortunately, a dozen people lost that bet, and the only responsible parties are the shooter and the risk taking parties.
Now with regards to a state or government preventing you from being armed in public – that is a completely different matter, and we should take pains to distinguish between the two.
This isn’t talking about who’s responsible for the shooting. It’s a question of the responsibility for having disarmed the patrons. I put the blame for the shooting on the orange-haired and yellow-bellied wacko who pulled the trigger. I put the blame for the disarmed audience on the theater chain.
“I put the blame for the disarmed audience on the theater chain.
Theatre chain didn’t disarm anybody. Patrons did that on their own.
You are absolutely right. The patrons disarmed themselves when they decided that seeing Batman was risking being without their weapons. They CHOSE to disarm themselves.
I’ve got to go with Tim on this one.
I agree with Tim. I also would like to see the death penalty in this case.
Maybe establishments that ban guns should require patrons sign releases if no security is provided. Those that bungee jump, skydive, go up in a hot air balloons, take ride-alongs in NASCAR cars et cetera all have to sign a release if injury is possible. Nobody forces folks to partake in those sports but without signed releases those companies are wide open to lawsuits if someone gets hurt.
In light of that gun-free establishments should do the responsible thing – and let their patrons know just how much they value them – by having patrons sign a release before entering so that if a psycho shoots up the place they can’t sue.
In a Commercial Law course a friend took, a hypothetical was presented of a woman slipping in a supermarket and injuring herself. The question: whom should she sue? The answer: everybody.
When Tim says the lawsuit against Aurora is stupid, what he really should say is that tort law in this country is stupid. But it is what it is. Were it not for legislative protection, the plaintiffs would be going after the gun and ammo manufacturers also.
OTOH, since kitchen-sink lawsuits are the norm, it is indeed curious that the legal theory of responsibility arising from banning guns has not been invoked. It may yet be. However, I suspect that plaintiffs may be hesitant to antagonize gun-control nuts on the jury.
AND said supermarket employees are instructed not to apologize for any slip-and-falls or any other injuries (i.e. Shut their pie-holes), nor to really do anything more than get EMT present to minimize liability.
If you prevent me from defending myself against an armed assailant, then you assume 100% liability for ensuring my safety.
Gun ban = 100% liability.
Let me defend myself, you are absolved of liability.
Simple. As. That.
The only problem with this is that you are willingly disarming yourself by entering into this business. The business is not forcing you to enter, so you know what the risks are, and you seem willing to accept them be entering a gun restricted area.
Those patrons had a choice to not walk into a movie theater that requires its customers to be disarmed. They chose to walk in anyway.
I’m sure had they known that a maniacal shooter was about to unleash a hail of bullets they would have chosen otherwise. The only person violating anyone’s rights was the shooter.
I want to say no but they deserve to be sued. They failed to provide proper security and they had a gun ban that wouldn’t allow the patrons to protect themselves. I hate law suits in general, but I hope these fools get taken for millions.
The “gun free zones” tide won’t be turned until property owners start being held legally liable for them.
Hopefully this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Property owners need to understand that there are legal consequences for disarming law abiding citizens.
That just won’t be the moral of this story–even if the theater loses. The basis for the suit(s) will not be that the victims where disarmed, and even if it were, the media would gloss over that angle.
This is primarily about the lawyers, and any widely disseminated messaging will be that guns were to blame.
Funny how that works. The suits attack the theater, and the gun gets the blame.
If you deny my right to defend myself and don’t provide security and my family or I are hurt, I will 100% sue. It’s my right to defend myself with my pistol since I have a concealed carry permit. The only way to get businesses to change their minds is to hit them in the pocketbook. I don’t like the idea of suing people but people’s constitutional rights are the exception for me.
I think you are right about the pocketbook, but wrong about the means. It is a mystery to me that the American consumer so often plays the victim, looking for help from lawyers and legislators, when all they need to do is STOP BUYING the products. That is where the power is, and should be.
You don’t like gun-free zones, don’t go there. And certainly don’t PAY to go there. What is the matter with us?
Am totally agree with your Gun
– free zone point. if you don’t like it, don’t go there.
The problem is when we stop buying, they blame the loss of sales on piracy or economic depression or any of a million other things.
They simply won’t ever understand they are losing patronage due to “gun free zones”.
So stopping buying won’t change it.
The only way to get the message across is to do it directly with a targeted specific lawsuit calling it out specifically.
I don’t necessarily agree, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t love to see how this suit ended up in court.
No!!!
Not to offend, but I disagree with most of the posts here. Encouraging the lawsuits and “legal system” rarely seems like a good idea. It usually escalates in a way that hurts us more.
Sure, I have a right to go there, but I also have a right not to go there, and that’s what I would choose. It just doesn’t seem as though encouraging lawsuits is a good idea. Perhaps it is better to simply not give these places our business, and also inform them for our reason. Perhaps it is better to build our influence by the strength of numbers (including showing the youngin’s our world).
While I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight, please consider this old saying: The gunfight you win is the one you can avoid. We should avoid this particular fight.
Why? Because it might get to the point of escalating the fight. Sure, sometimes that is necessary, but in this particular case, it’s easier to just give our business to another establishment.
I’m all for fighting when it’s needed and necessary, and I’m all for fighting until the threat is stopped – but I’m also for personal property rights (even though I think they’re being stupid), but mostly, I’m in favor simply walking away when I can, and this is such a case. I just wouldn’t go there.
+1, property rights win. If you don’t like the policy then don’t frequent the establishment. By choosing to be there anyway you have by default agreed to their policy. On a side note, I will finally be eating at my favorite local pizza establishment again because they took the no guns sign off their door.
A business serving the public has a different level of property rights from a home owner or a private club. The theater, for example, shouldn’t ban someone who wears a yarmulke or a headscarf. By the same reasoning, nor should they ban someone who is carrying a handgun.
+1
Businesses “open to the public” have legal obligations that homeowners do not. A “no jews allowed” sign will get you in serious trouble. Should be no different for 2a.
Hypothetically, if this lawsuit is successful, then anyplace open to the public that doesn’t have armed guards, and possibly some sort of checkpoint and search system, could be open to millions in liability. I can’t think of a worse argument to expand the TSA, but that wouldn’t stop them from using it.
You can be sure that’s a more likely outcome than for all the gun free zone signs to come down.
+1000. That’s the real danger with this lawsuit. It can easily degenerate into all public venues such as movie theaters being under the purview of the TSA, or some similarly retarded idea.
On one hand, I hate what lawsuits have done to this country and how fear of them has turned companies and people into spineless, soulless entities.
On the other hand, I enjoy seeing those that take away other people’s rights on their property reap what they sow.
Business owners cannot deny you entry based on race, handicap or religion. My 2a rights are civil rights also. I see the no guns signs as being as repugnent and abusive as “Whites Only” signs. I’m an ofwg from south of the mason dixon line and I can remember those signs from my childhood. We gun owners are in the same fight for civil rights as people of color were.
Yes, I remember those signs also. That was a very disheartening world, and I agree with the essence of what you said.
Maybe I’m wrong, but in today’s world, it seems that the pocketbook is a more efficient way to hit hard than subjecting ourselves to unpredictable courts.
Courts are unpredictable, but cash is obvious. Let’s take our message to the masses through neighbors and friends, and explain to these businesses why we won’t give them our money. Strength in numbers.
I’d be a fool to own a business today that overtly discriminated – regarding either customers or employees. Not only have the courts already ruled, but the hearts and minds of people have also ruled. Best and brightest conquers racial discrimination any day. Pocketbook also conquers.
The 2a is the same way. The courts have (mostly) ruled in our favor. Let us work on the hearts, minds, logical thinking and integrity of common folks. Fight when we have to, and avoid the fights that might set us back.
This is exactly why I don’t patronize any private business that does not support my 2A rights. There are very minor exceptions, but for the most part if a business has a no-guns sign, they they don’t get my money.
I read something about the theater being able to claim in their defense that no violence of this sort has ever occurred previously at a movie theater before. Therefore the theater should not be held liable for not providing a higher level (not that there was any) of security. BTW, I’m not arguing either way just reporting what I read.
This is absolutely correct.
Beyond the obvious fact that this was a horrible, national news tragedy, there’s nothing particularly unique about the victims’ claims. In most states, premises liability claims predicated on negligent security are based on whether or not the land owner (i.e., the movie theatre and/or the owner of the building, if fact the company didn’t own the theatre and depending on the lease) knew or should have known that criminal activity was likely to occur.
Most of the cases you’d read are pretty straightforward – liquor stores in bad neighborhoods with dark parking lots – etc. In those cases, it’s not hard to say that the property owner SHOULD have anticipated that the property was dangerous.
I haven’t seen any facts that would suggest that this movie theatre had any reason to suspect that something like this would happen. HOWEVER, expect that the plaintiffs’ attorney or attorneys will produce expert reports by “security experts” (former cops, military etc) stating that the theatre should have anticipated something like this, given the crowd, the movie etc. This will be enough to raise an issue of fact and keep the lawsuit alive.
Suing the theatre was a natural move, of course. Trial attorneys always go after the deep pockets. Cinemark is probably self insured (as most companies of this type are) up to $1 million, and has other coverage beyond that. Considering the fact that the shooter (may he rot in hell) was a broke student, you knew the trial lawyers would come calling.
However, the suit against the movie theatre here is pretty interesting in regard to the ccw aspect. I’ve never come across the issue of ccw in a lawsuit like this. I don’t really see that one going anywhere, though, if I had to guess. Plaintiffs would have to show that “but for” the theatre’s decision to ban ccw, the shooting would have been prevented, or, at least, not as bad. I’m interested to see what comes of this.
Remember that this is a CIVIL case, not a CRIMINAL case. The burden of proof is per “a preponderance of the evidence”, not “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Therefore it should be easy to prove that the Cinemark company’s gun-free-zone policy and lack of security is at least partially to blame for the size and severity of this mass shooting. If the shooter admits that he selected this theater over others, then you should be able to prove that they are partially to blame for the fact that it even happened at all.
I don’t see any way that Cinemark can win this case. And there are dozens more just like it about to be filed. I think Cinemark will be forced to change their policy, and they may even be forced into bankruptcy.
When the BC gets high enough. when 2+2 equals 8 PPLwill start packin
No one is forcing you to enter the premises. Private businesses should be able to make those rules and people should be free to not patronize that business. Vote with your pocketbook and inform them that you will not spend your money there until they change their policies.
Think of it this way. Why would you patronize a business that does not recognize your right to self defense? How many times have gun owners boycotted products (like RECOIL magazine) over anti gun/anti self defense policies/remarks?
Besides, why would you spend your hard earned money to support a company that denies your rights in the first place? That would be like a person of color spending money at a store owned and run by white supremacist. Sure, he may be forced to serve you, but he will spend your money to further his racist agenda and hurt you in the long run.
Bottom line, know company policies before you patronize.
I think voting with your wallet is the preferred method but if a business takes a position like this in a CCW state I do think they should take some steps to provide security. At least have someone in the theater to not let a door be propped open so he could waltz back in. The fact he reentered so easily would be what I take issue with.
One side effect of a lawsuit like this may be removal of No Guns Allowed in some venues, and isn’t changing policies a secondary reason for lawsuits, right after raking in enough cash to live well?
All of our disagreements in society are over Natural Rights and the Social Contract. People disagree because either they reject Natural Rights and the Social Contract or they don’t know how to handle apparent conflicts of rights.
As for people who reject Natural Rights and the Social Contract, they have no place in our society or nation and should immediately move to another country. Regarding the other source of conflict — uncertainty over apparent conflicts of natural rights, I have a simple, sensible, logical solution.
Natural Rights means every citizen has inalienable rights. We famously group them as Life, Liberty, and Property. The Social Contract means everyone collaborates for mutual benefit, and anyone can do whatever they want as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.
Now for one more detail: priority of rights when there is a conflict of rights. I argue that Life rights take priority over the other rights. And I argue that Liberty rights take priority over Property rights. The reasoning is simple. Once life is lost, it cannot ever be restored. If Liberty is lost, it can at least be restored moving forward but what was lost is forever lost. Finally, lost property can always be restored. And remember, we are collaborating as a society for everyone’s mutual benefit.
So how does this help with Cinemark theaters? Cinemark can do whatever they want with their property unless their actions affect Liberty or Life. Cinemark is not entitled to hold patrons hostage or rape them (infringe their Liberty) on their property. Nor is Cinemark entitled to execute someone (infringe their Life) on their property. Similarly, Cinemark is not entitled to prevent someone from defending themselves (infringe their Life) on Cinemark property. Let’s continue with other actions that Cinemark is not entitled to carry out on their property:
Cinemark cannot ban someone from running away from an assault or defending themselves with their fists. Cinemark cannot ban someone from grabbing a fire extinguisher and trying to put out a fire. Cinemark cannot ban someone from grabbing a fire extinguisher and using it to stop a shooter. A Cinemark employee or executive cannot physically subdue and restrain a patron so that a criminal can beat up the patron. So why does anyone think a Cinemark employee or executive can restrain a patron from having a firearm to defend themselves from an attack?
And remember the Social Contract is about everyone collaborating for mutual benefit. There is no direct benefit to Cinemark if they infringe on the Life and property rights of patrons who wish to be armed for self defense. At best they can try to claim that they might pay lower insurance premiums with such a policy. In reality, someone at Cinemark just doesn’t like firearms and wants to impose their position on everyone else. And somehow that takes precedent over a patrons right to life?
Before anyone jumps up and down, patrons with a concealed handgun in a holster do not disrupt Cinemark’s guests or business operations. And a handgun in a holster is not going to magically discharge by itself. As for the “no one is forcing you to go there” arguments, the fact that patrons have other options does not matter. What matters is that Cinemark is violating the Social Contract when they ban patrons from having firearms for self defense. We, as a society, don’t tolerate other violations of the Social Contract. Why is this violation acceptable?
That was a lot of words to say nothing that made any sense whatsoever.
I just love how you talk about rights, but what you actually mean is that people only have the right to do what you tell them – fortunately tin pot fascists like you don’t have the power to dictate what I, a business owner, allow onto MY property. If you are too cowardly to enter an establishment without your gun then just don’t enter it – it’s called a personal choice. If you think there is a big market for kooks and those with inferiority complexes to watch a film while stroking their guns then open your own cinema and reap the profits – it’s called a free market.
It’s strange – I thought that the right wing were supposed to be all about personal choice and the free market. It sounds like what they’re actually all about is dictatorship and hypocrisy.
Okay Hmmmmmmm. Let’s boil it down so you can grasp it. The Social Contract == Live and let live.
Anyone, anywhere who seeks to control my actions and my property to the point that I can’t live violates the Social Contract — whether or not I am on private property. You tell people to be unarmed simply because you want to tell people what to do, not because it affects your life, liberty, or property. That is NOT part of the Social Contract.
Our society decays every time an entity — be it an individual, business, political group, or government — violates the Social Contract. If you don’t believe that, just look around.
And since you violated the Social Contract with me first when you demanded that I be give up my Natural Rights to Life (which includes self defense) and Property before being on your property, I am no longer obligated to honor the Social Contract in our interactions.
This isn’t a flame, this is merely a statement of fact – you are displaying MANY of the signs of being a psychopath. If you truly believe you have the right to do whatever you want on MY property, up to and including bringing weapons onto it, then you need to get checked into a nice padded room somewhere and talk to a professional about your mental state.
Although I feel like Cinemark should be held liable to some extent I also agree that fighting back with your wallet works too.
The new CCW cards that RF has made available are great. One of our local restaurants has never had a no guns sign posted anywhere but recently the girls and I went there to eat and while I was in the restroom an employee noticed the outline of my 1911(an ATI FX Titan) under my shirt while I was bent over the sink washing my hands.
After I had gotten back to our booth the Manager came over and quietly told me I would have to put my firearm in my vehicle.
I asked him why and he stated they do not allow firearms inside, and I politely informed him of the state law requiring a sign being posted at the entrances, told him thanks for letting me know and quietly got the girls together and we left.
As we were leaving I handed the manager one of RF’s CCW cards and told him we would not be back until his policy changed and that I would let everyone I knew with a CHCL that they were gun banners.
Last Saturday my nephew, who works at that restaurant called to tell me they had lost over 20 regular weekly customers because of the ban and that the manager had changed the policy to allow ccw in the place as long as they were legally licensed.
We are now back to eating in our favorite restaurant every weekend and he has realized we are just normal people with a firm belief in protecting our families, friends and ourselves.
Thank’s RF for the cards!!! Have handed out 15 of the 60 I ordered and all but 2 of the business’s have dropped their ban on guns!!!
Fighting back with your wallet works, just be sure to brin extra dogs to the fight and above all be polite and as professional as possible.
The Foxnews link is broken; is this the article you intended to link to? In it they question if the theater being a gun free zone was a contributing factor to his selection of the theater. There were closer theaters to his house, but did not ban guns. There were larger theaters with more potential victims a few miles further.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/
I am surprised no one is looking at this had it happened in Wisconsin. Their concealed carry statute explicitly states that businesses who allow concealed carry are immune from lawsuits if someone uses a firearm on their property. Even more interesting, their statute states that businesses who ban guns are liable for any injuries that occur as a result.
Do you have a cite for the statute? immunity could be a very compelling motivator for businesses.
First, I am extremely glad to hear this lawsuit is happening. I’m less glad that the lawyers aren’t making the explicit argument on the grounds that banning guns does raise the responsibility to the proprietor, but that is likely to come out at some point during trial.
Second, regarding all those who say that the patrons accepted the risk when they set foot inside a gun-free zone, and that we the 2A community can make change through the wallet… a few thoughts.
1. I’m less concerned about movie theatres and restaurants than about other private establishments where the choice isn’t quite so clear.
For example, one of the major shopping malls where I live is a gun-free zone. Could I find another shopping mall? Sure. Is it 25 miles out of the way? Yes it is. Are there stores in this shopping mall that cannot be found elsewhere? Yep. It’s fine and dandy to claim that private property trumps all, and that CCW holders can choose not to patronize those establishments. But the reality is a bit trickier than that.
There are “private establishments” where the choice is more or less imaginary. The biggest example has to be employers. Even here in gun-friendly Texas, quite a few employers ban guns from their premises — which is their right to do so. Yet, workplace violence is hardly unknown. And TTAG and other gun forums are full of people thinking about what they would do if they got caught at work in a violent situation, and their handgun — which they are legally licensed to carry — is locked in their cars.
The balance, in my view, is to firmly endorse the private property owner’s right to exclude guns from his property, but raise the bar for responsibility if they do so.
In other words, I’m 100% fine with Cinemark choosing to ban guns from its theatres. I just want that decision to mean a higher level of responsibility should something happen to the now-disarmed patrons. Cinemark could choose to spend more on security measures in order to carry out its anti-gun policy, which is their right, or they could choose to allow legal guns and accept a lower bar on liability.
If an employer wishes to disarm his employees, that is his right. But he should then accept higher level of responsibility for providing for their physical security from the unknown and unforeseen.
The Wisconsin law that uncommon_sense mentions, in other words, is the perfect legislative response. I hope Texas would pass the same law.
2. I simply do not buy the argument that “this has never happened before” that Cinemark is likely to offer. Tort law is replete with examples of things that had never happened before, but results in liability nonetheless. No small child has ever drowned in my swimming pool, but if I don’t put a fence around it and a 3-yr old drowns in it, my defense that “it’s never happened before” will avail me little.
In this case, not only did Cinemark fail to take precautions, it actively took a step to prevent patrons from taking their own precautions. As above, I am unmoved by the idea that the patrons voluntarily accepted the risk of death and serious injury from criminals by walking into a movie.
3. Fighting back with the wallet is an excellent idea, and I have some of those TTAG cards as well that I plan on putting to good use soon. But I don’t see why we should choose not to use every means at our disposal to change the culture and the environment.
Let the private individuals pass out the “No gun, no business” cards and vote with their wallets. Let folks like the Second Amendment Foundation go file lawsuit after lawsuit against the gun-free zone businesses, just as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed lawsuit after lawsuit to correct a violation of Constitutional rights. Let the NRA go lobby in state and Federal legislatures and administrative agencies to expand the 2A freedoms. Let someone make a movie normalizing gun ownership. Let people write blogs like TTAG, or news stories, or what-have-you.
I see absolutely NO downside in fighting the fight on every front. There isn’t a forum or means I’m willing to concede to the Antis because “it hurts our cause” somehow.
It amazes me that everyone is focusing on the notion that “Well, if they won’t allow people to arm themselves in the theater, then they’re liable for not having security.”
Whether they allowed CCW or didn’t makes no difference in this case. NONE. Had they allowed CCW, I can guarantee they would still be facing the exact same lawsuit. The lawyers are arguing that the exit of the theater should have been stationed with security personnel (or similar protection) to prevent someone from sneaking in. Even if the theatre had been full of people with firearms, Cinemark would still be facing this lawsuit, as they’re contending that allowing the shooter to sneak in through the exit was negligence and caused injury.
The main concern of people sneaking in from the exit is lost revenue. How foreseeing a gunman sneaking in a back exit and massacring people is reasonable is beyond me.
It seems most of you want to punish the theatre for not allowing CCW, rather than for anything they actually did wrong.
The theater SHOULD be punished for not allowing CCW, since that eliminated the possibility of an armed response reducing fatalities and injuries.
This is why the argument of the plaintiff has to evoke the fact that Cinemark is a gun-free zone. You can have a gun-free zone if you’d like, but your responsibility to your now-disarmed customers should be raised vs. someone who hasn’t disarmed their legal, licensed CCW customers.
The whole point of CCW is to be ready for the unpredictable and the unforeseeable., like getting mugged, raped, assaulted, etc. Prevent licensed citizens from being prepared for the unpredictable and the unforeseeable should mean that YOU are now responsible for the consequences of the unpredictable and the unforeseeable.
God forbid someone did that. *eye roll*
Instead like the majority of the sheep, they will sue Cinemark (sp?) for “not providing ample protection of their patrons.” Aka posting armed sentries at entrances, exits, and possibly inside movie theaters. Awesome free movies! But all kidding aside. That’s the mentality of people in this country. Give a guy a gun and a badge and suddenly we’re “safe from the evil doers” — There is this bias I’ve been studying lately, I’de say ever since I started shopping at Whole Foods.
If it is now possible to sue a wedding cake maker over refusing to make a wedding cake (we have all heard the “you can’t discriminate against customers” argument), why are businesses like restaurants not being sued for “discriminating” against legal gun owners who want to openly carry firearms they are legally permitted to have?
Stated another way, businesses who tell customers they are not allowed into their place of business with their legally licensed firearms are guilty of discrimination.
Comments are closed.