PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible to SUE the city of Aurora CO for the "gun free zone"


Mendo223
07-24-2012, 5:21 PM
If i was one of the victims of this massacre, and i had to watch as people around me were gunned down mercilessly, or if i was injured or lost a loved one in this tragic massacre....I WOULD SUE THE $*#@^ out of the colorado movie authority, the city or aurora, for stripping my 2nd amendment rights and making me a defenseless victim..


Is there any ground to sue, for violating the 2nd amendment and for stripping peoples rights to self defense?

Is this an option or is there no legal basis....just curious


I would also want to do the same if i was living in SF or another city with gun control, and i was a victim of home invasion and unable to protect myself and my property...

G60
07-24-2012, 5:25 PM
No. Nobody was forcibly disarmed.

Mendo223
07-24-2012, 5:26 PM
Oh it wasnt an actual law that you are banned from bringing firearms?


Were off duty LEO and people with LTC permits allowed to bring firearms into the movie?

CSACANNONEER
07-24-2012, 5:49 PM
No one forced anyone to go to any business where firearms are not allowed. All the victims walked in there, unarmed, under their own free will.

I support a business's RIGHT to run their business how they see fit. That includes their decisions and policies which I do not agree with. I also support an individual's right to choose with whom they want to do business with. So, instead of being upset at the theater, be upset with everyone who patronizes it! Really, do you support FREEDOM or do you really think that they should be sued and lose? That would only cause less freedom and more government regulations? Is that what you really want? Next time, try to let logic control your thought process instead of allowing illogical emotions to control how you think.

ddestruel
07-24-2012, 5:53 PM
i believe it was a private movie theater and that the private movie theater posted a sign prohibiting LTC holders from bringing weapons into the facility. So the onus is mainly upon the patron.

But if they, the commercial entity excercizing their right to post and prohibit carry in their facility, are taking youth and claiming that the facility is relatively safe that they are assuming some of the responsibility for providing a secure enviroment and enforcing their policy through security sevices and screening. It would seem to me and my non-legal educated mind that if a private company wants to prohibit self defense via not allowing private carrying of a means of self defense while inside their public facility that they should be reasonably responsible for your safety while inside their facility and under their rules. Just like when you step onto a private charter bus they are responsible for providing a reasonably safe enviroment via safe equipment etc but can be held liable if negligent. Therefor i would think that if they (the city or company) can not gaurantee that their facility is a secure area then they should be held to some level of responsibility for claiming a safe enviroment and banning self defense, excercizing their right as a private company to ban CCW and self defense is fine but they then it would seem to me assume the responsibility to provide relative security of some sort. I'm in no way trying to say that a private property owner can be forced to allow ccw on their property but if they are going to ban it and then promote their facility as safe and secure they better be able to substantiate the claim

So to me if they have no prohibitation against self defense then they are practicing an enter at your own risk policy but if they are going to post a sign and restrict self defense then they should be responsible/liable for providing the security. At the same time all patrons make a concious decission to enter a posted facility that prohibits such. So there is a certain level of mutual & personal responsibility also.

I wonder if a grey area will develop here with facilities who post being held to some level of responsibility? as well the policy of issuing LTC permits and gun free zones by city ordinance could maybe be brought into question and challenge liability. a possible result of this tradegy might be if you deny the ability to carry and self defend then you assume some liability/responsibility for providing security.

mrdd
07-24-2012, 6:25 PM
I would also want to do the same if i was living in SF or another city with gun control, and i was a victim of home invasion and unable to protect myself and my property...

What gun control are you referring to? I think you are confused.

Gray Peterson
07-24-2012, 6:42 PM
What he's talking about is the obviously preempted carry statute that Aurora adopted which violates state law.

NoJoke
07-24-2012, 6:54 PM
No one forced anyone to go to any business where firearms are not allowed..

Ok, so how do you view Batman on the big screen?

Doesn't the city of Aurora ban CCW's?

I dunno, class action suit?

CSACANNONEER
07-24-2012, 7:02 PM
Ok, so how do you view Batman on the big screen?

Doesn't the city of Aurora ban CCW's?

I dunno, class action suit?

It's not a right to veiw Batman on a big screen. It's a choice. All choices come with pros and cons.

IDK about CO laws but, in CA, a city can not ban LTC carriers from carrying in their city.

taperxz
07-24-2012, 7:04 PM
What he's talking about is the obviously preempted carry statute that Aurora adopted which violates state law.

Gray, can you expand on this? Just interested.:)

voiceofreason
07-24-2012, 7:12 PM
No one forced anyone to go to any business where firearms are not allowed. All the victims walked in there, unarmed, under their own free will.

I support a business's RIGHT to run their business how they see fit. That includes their decisions and policies which I do not agree with. I also support an individual's right to choose with whom they want to do business with.

Agreed. Nearly word for word my thoughts on this matter.
(except CSA is more eloquent about it)

NoJoke
07-24-2012, 7:16 PM
It's not a right to veiw Batman on a big screen. It's a choice. All choices come with pros and cons.

.

So, where is that spelled out in the 2a again? :D :rolleyes:

Gray Peterson
07-24-2012, 8:03 PM
Gray, can you expand on this? Just interested.:)

Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SC344.pdf)

Colorado has two separate preemption statutes: The CHL/concealed carry preemption (which allows carry in all areas of the state unless specifically prohibited by STATE law) and the general firearms preemption law.

The above lawsuit has to do with the CHL/concealed carry preemption law.

Aurora Code:

Sec. 94-152. - Firearms on private property.

(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to enter or remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment when such property, building, or establishment is posted with notification that the carrying of firearms is prohibited.
(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment after such person has been given verbal notice that the carrying of firearms is prohibited on such property, building, or establishment.
(c)
Possession of a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to repeal, or possession of a permit or temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to pt. 2 of art. 18 of tit. 9 of the Colorado Revised Statutes shall be no defense to a violation of this section.
(Ord. No. 2003-56, 3, 9-8-2003; Ord. No. 2010-24, 7, 7-12-2010)

State law on CHL Permitting Authority:

C.R.S. 18-12-214 (1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.


Overall preemption Law:

C.R.S. 29-11.7-104

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

Anyone else see the problem here?

The Regents Case was decided in the Supreme Court on March 5th of this year. This case supercharged CHL/concealed preemption significantly in the state of Colorado. Why hasn't anyone sued? No idea.

Agent Orange
07-24-2012, 8:05 PM
The "colorado movie authority"? Are you serious?

The Geologist
07-24-2012, 8:06 PM
Call OSHA. It was/is an unsafe work environment.

curtisfong
07-24-2012, 8:21 PM
The way I see it is if you ban carry, you take on responsibility for my safety.

ddestruel
07-24-2012, 8:28 PM
The way I see it is if you ban carry, you take on responsibility for my safety.

This ^

I get wordy

I think the city also takes on liability/responsibility when they ban, deny or create an enviroment that prevents self defense

the right word twister and legal team might make something out of this

choprzrul
07-24-2012, 8:39 PM
Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SC344.pdf)

Colorado has two separate preemption statutes: The CHL/concealed carry preemption (which allows carry in all areas of the state unless specifically prohibited by STATE law) and the general firearms preemption law.

The above lawsuit has to do with the CHL/concealed carry preemption law.

Aurora Code:

Sec. 94-152. - Firearms on private property.

(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to enter or remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment when such property, building, or establishment is posted with notification that the carrying of firearms is prohibited.
(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment after such person has been given verbal notice that the carrying of firearms is prohibited on such property, building, or establishment.
(c)
Possession of a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to repeal, or possession of a permit or temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to pt. 2 of art. 18 of tit. 9 of the Colorado Revised Statutes shall be no defense to a violation of this section.
(Ord. No. 2003-56, 3, 9-8-2003; Ord. No. 2010-24, 7, 7-12-2010)

State law on CHL Permitting Authority:

C.R.S. 18-12-214 (1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.


Overall preemption Law:

C.R.S. 29-11.7-104

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

Anyone else see the problem here?

The Regents Case was decided in the Supreme Court on March 5th of this year. This case supercharged CHL/concealed preemption significantly in the state of Colorado. Why hasn't anyone sued? No idea.


Gray, you just made my day.

.

nick
07-24-2012, 8:58 PM
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but if one had an LTC, and didn't take it to Cinemark because of this ordinance and the no-guns sign, he might have a case. If one didn't have an LTC, he doesn't have a case, as he couldn't have legally carried anyway.

Gray Peterson
07-24-2012, 9:12 PM
Gray, you just made my day.

Your welcome.

taperxz
07-24-2012, 9:24 PM
Good information Gray, I had a feeling you might know I little something. Thanks!

CSACANNONEER
07-25-2012, 6:15 AM
So, where is that spelled out in the 2a again? :D :rolleyes:

Right before it spells out that everyone has the right to view Batman on a big screen and ignore the theater property owner's rights while doing so.:p

Curley Red
07-25-2012, 6:44 AM
Go ahead and sue, you know what will happen. Kiss CCW's good bye. If they do not offer them, then you can't sue because someone wasn't allowed to carry. This is how stupid laws get written, because of stupid law suits. The only place to put blame is on the shooter, no one else.

RP1911
07-25-2012, 7:39 AM
So the jurisdiction can ban OPEN carry on its OWN properties. Nothing about LTC in the ordinance posted above. Is the theater complex city owned?

Peaceful John
07-25-2012, 8:29 AM
No one forced anyone to go to any business where firearms are not allowed. All the victims walked in there, unarmed, under their own free will.

True, but I would wish that any establishment serving the public under a municipal business license would be required to honor the Constitution.

Hopelessly blue-skying,
John

Wiz-of-Awd
07-25-2012, 8:34 AM
Go ahead and sue, you know what will happen. Kiss CCW's good bye. If they do not offer them, then you can't sue because someone wasn't allowed to carry. This is how stupid laws get written, because of stupid law suits. The only place to put blame is on the shooter, no one else.

This.

...and no law suit is going to bring any of those people back to their families.

A.W.D.

Peaceful John
07-25-2012, 8:52 AM
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to enter or remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment when such property, building, or establishment is posted with notification that the carrying of firearms is prohibited.

(c)
Possession of a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to repeal, or possession of a permit or temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to pt. 2 of art. 18 of tit. 9 of the Colorado Revised Statutes shall be no defense to a violation of this section.
(Ord. No. 2003-56, 3, 9-8-2003; Ord. No. 2010-24, 7, 7-12-2010)[/I]

State law on CHL Permitting Authority:

C.R.S. 18-12-214 (1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.


Anyone else see the problem here?

The Regents Case was decided in the Supreme Court on March 5th of this year. This case supercharged CHL/concealed preemption significantly in the state of Colorado. Why hasn't anyone sued? No idea.

If any good can come out of this, it may be in Gray's posting. Significant (if still inadequate) compensation to the victims exceeding the insuance limits of both the City of Aurora and the theatre chain. One can only hope.

Thanks, Gray.

XD40SUBBIE
07-25-2012, 9:12 AM
The way I see it is if you ban carry, you take on responsibility for my safety.

This ^

I get wordy

I think the city also takes on liability/responsibility when they ban, deny or create an enviroment that prevents self defense

the right word twister and legal team might make something out of this

Advocatus Diabloli:

If the theater took every "reasonable" precaution to ensure safety. I think this Cinemark in particular will have a problem with this since the fire doors were not alarmed and no one checked it being propped opened...but say these were followed. (I know this is often violated, but is in some cities a violation of the fire code) but if those were followed, it will be hard to put liability in the hands of Cinemark, simply because they are a gun free zone. Since not every judge or jury will agree with our assertion of reduction of safety.

Then, we have the elephant staring at us in the room...would a reasonable jury or judge agree that should their have been an armed citizen in the theater that day, would it have turned out better? I saw the thread about the two shootings in Aurora, the one at the church minimized casualties because an off-duty cop was in the congregation. But I see this as much different. A second gun in a smoke filled room with people panicking, it is pitch dark save for the movie may have people think there is a second gun man exacerbating the situation with people running in front of the armed citizen. That's even if the armed citizen were to merely fire in the air. If s/he attempted to shoot James Egan Holmes, it would be hard to prove that s/he would hit him and not a bystander or even hit JEH at all. In a church, in the middle of the day, I can see where an armed citizen would make a difference. In a theater, full of smoke? That's a hard hypothetical, even for LEO's or military.

Gray Peterson
07-25-2012, 9:27 AM
Go ahead and sue, you know what will happen. Kiss CCW's good bye. If they do not offer them, then you can't sue because someone wasn't allowed to carry. This is how stupid laws get written, because of stupid law suits. The only place to put blame is on the shooter, no one else.

1) The City of Aurora is not an issuer of carry licenses. The county sheriffs offices are.

2) Colorado is not going to repeal it's shall-issue law or it's CHL/concealed preemption because the City of Aurora gets hit with a lawsuit over it's illegal ordinance. You have no understanding of Colorado politics, at all.

viet4lifeOC
07-25-2012, 9:50 AM
No one forced anyone to go to any business where firearms are not allowed. All the victims walked in there, unarmed, under their own free will.

I support a business's RIGHT to run their business how they see fit. That includes their decisions and policies which I do not agree with. I also support an individual's right to choose with whom they want to do business with. So, instead of being upset at the theater, be upset with everyone who patronizes it! Really, do you support FREEDOM or do you really think that they should be sued and lose? That would only cause less freedom and more government regulations? Is that what you really want? Next time, try to let logic control your thought process instead of allowing illogical emotions to control how you think.

A MOST EXCELLENT POST.

morfeeis
07-25-2012, 11:08 AM
No one forced anyone to go to any business where firearms are not allowed. All the victims walked in there, unarmed, under their own free will.

I support a business's RIGHT to run their business how they see fit. That includes their decisions and policies which I do not agree with. I also support an individual's right to choose with whom they want to do business with. So, instead of being upset at the theater, be upset with everyone who patronizes it! Really, do you support FREEDOM or do you really think that they should be sued and lose? That would only cause less freedom and more government regulations? Is that what you really want? Next time, try to let logic control your thought process instead of allowing illogical emotions to control how you think.
Thats the truth, they knew the risk when they went to the movies unarmed, but like most of, they said "it'll never happen here" or "we'll be safe this one time". If a store tells you "no firearms allowed" they might as well tell you please dont give us you money because we dont care if you live or die. So next time you see a "No firearms allowed" sign tell them "No Money Allowed!".

mrdd
07-25-2012, 11:59 AM
If i was one of the victims of this massacre, and i had to watch as people around me were gunned down mercilessly, or if i was injured or lost a loved one in this tragic massacre....I WOULD SUE THE $*#@^ out of the colorado movie authority, the city or aurora, for stripping my 2nd amendment rights and making me a defenseless victim..


Is there any ground to sue, for violating the 2nd amendment and for stripping peoples rights to self defense?

Is this an option or is there no legal basis....just curious


I would also want to do the same if i was living in SF or another city with gun control, and i was a victim of home invasion and unable to protect myself and my property...

What gun control are you referring to? I think you are confused.

What he's talking about is the obviously preempted carry statute that Aurora adopted which violates state law.

OK, I got that. But he also said something about San Francisco, and I am not sure what that refers to.

SF is not really different from other large cities in CA in this regard.

nicki
07-25-2012, 12:06 PM
Government's will try to claim "sovereign immunity", but how does that work when the government is operating under what I would consider "color of law".

In general, most people will follow laws and regulations even if they are "illegal" because most people "assume" the agents of government have the power to do what they do.

Suing the city of Aurora may go no where in the court of law, but it may go somewhere in the court of public opinion.

The anit's scream that if we had people in the theater with guns, that there would be more injuries and deaths.

Something they don't get and something we need to really drill in because the public will be with us on this one is the following:

By having a gun, a person in that theater would at least had a chance at survival rather than no chance at all.

Nicki

Lugiahua
07-25-2012, 12:49 PM
There is already a guy suing AMC, not because of LTC, but for the fire door was not alarmed.

vincewarde
07-25-2012, 1:47 PM
No one forced anyone to go to any business where firearms are not allowed. All the victims walked in there, unarmed, under their own free will.

I support a business's RIGHT to run their business how they see fit. That includes their decisions and policies which I do not agree with. I also support an individual's right to choose with whom they want to do business with. So, instead of being upset at the theater, be upset with everyone who patronizes it! Really, do you support FREEDOM or do you really think that they should be sued and lose? That would only cause less freedom and more government regulations? Is that what you really want? Next time, try to let logic control your thought process instead of allowing illogical emotions to control how you think.

I agree that businesses have rights - including the right to ban guns. I also have a right to avoid such places. However...........

I believe that in the wake of this incident we may very well see the first time a business is held legally accountable for the hazard created by establishing a "phony gun free zone". Some of the arguments might be as follows:

1) By posting such signs they gave the impression that the environment was safer, when in fact they knew, or should have known that such signs made mass shootings more likely. They failed to warn patrons of this hazard.

2) By posting such signs, they implicitly took responsibility for their customer's safety.

3) By posting such signs they created a "gun free zone" that they then failed to enforce. They also failed to warn patrons that said signs would keep the law abiding from carrying guns, but they had no enforcement measures in place to keep those bent on evil from bringing their guns inside. Customers could argue that seeing the sign they logically thought such enforcement measures were in place.

Combined with zero security on the exit door - I think this theater could be looking at a huge liability issue. This could cause a lot of businesses to take another look at the whole issue of gun bans.

At a minimum, we should push very hard for signs to tell the whole story. They should be required to read something like this:

********************************
No Guns Allowed
No measures are in place to prevent armed criminals from entering
This location may be more dangerous as a result of this policy
********************************

Personally, I have no sympathy for businesses who give their customers a false sense of security by posting these signs. I believe that we need to legally require business to either create a true "sterile" gun free zone, or allow people legally carrying to enter. I would argue that it has nothing to do with the rights of those who carry - it is all about the obligation of those who post these signs not to create a hazardous condition for everyone.

vincewarde
07-25-2012, 1:51 PM
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but if one had an LTC, and didn't take it to Cinemark because of this ordinance and the no-guns sign, he might have a case. If one didn't have an LTC, he doesn't have a case, as he couldn't have legally carried anyway.

Wrong. The "no guns" sign makes the location more dangerous, therefore one does not need a CCW to bring action against the theater on these grounds.

vincewarde
07-25-2012, 1:53 PM
There is already a guy suing AMC, not because of LTC, but for the fire door was not alarmed.

Unless the guys lawyer is an idiot, the "no guns" signs will be added to his suit.

Whiterabbit
07-25-2012, 2:00 PM
1) By posting such signs they gave the impression that the environment was safer, when in fact they knew, or should have known that such signs made mass shootings more likely. They failed to warn patrons of this hazard..

I disagree. I'll bet if there were folks carrying in that theater (properly trained, practiced, etc), they would not have drawn. There's a reason firing lines don't stand in a circle.

Remember all the folks carrying during the Giffords tragedy? No one fired then either.

--------

I'm surprised that no one has yet suggested we ban Batman movies as a result of this crime. The public obviously can't handle them. I think it is the clear legislative action we need to take on this one. Anyone gonna sign my petition?

vincewarde
07-25-2012, 2:02 PM
Thats the truth, they knew the risk when they went to the movies unarmed, but like most of, they said "it'll never happen here" or "we'll be safe this one time". If a store tells you "no firearms allowed" they might as well tell you please dont give us you money because we dont care if you live or die. So next time you see a "No firearms allowed" sign tell them "No Money Allowed!".

I agree with your policy of not entering gun free zones - but I would argue that you are very wrong about people knowing the risk. Most people, seeing a "no guns" sign, would be lead to believe that the location is safer - when in fact it is more dangerous for everyone. The theater failed to advise them of this hazard - they are therefore liable for creating a more dangerous situation.

Furthermore, if they were advised to adopt this policy by say Brady - on the grounds that it would make their theaters safer - then it is quite possible that Brady could be liable for damages as well.

Perhaps a pro-gun rights group could help victims bring these actions.

Curley Red
07-25-2012, 2:14 PM
There is already a guy suing AMC, not because of LTC, but for the fire door was not alarmed.

A fire door is just a door that has been rated to handle a fire for a certain amount of time. The door in question is an exit door, which does not require to have an alarm on it, the only thing an exit door requires is the ability to exit through it with no special knowledge. The only reason you see alarms on exit doors is because the owner of a business wants to know if someone opens it. The alarm is not required by any code.

vincewarde
07-25-2012, 8:46 PM
A fire door is just a door that has been rated to handle a fire for a certain amount of time. The door in question is an exit door, which does not require to have an alarm on it, the only thing an exit door requires is the ability to exit through it with no special knowledge. The only reason you see alarms on exit doors is because the owner of a business wants to know if someone opens it. The alarm is not required by any code.

True - but that in no way relieves them of liability. I would argue that by posting "no guns" signs, as well as by simply creating a public assembly, they assume some responsibility to provide security. Ultimately, the courts will decide.

However, I bet that right now every theater is reexamining it's security policies - and if the suits that are sure to come reference the insane policy of forbidding all forms of legal carry while doing absolutely nothing to prevent criminal and psychopaths from bringing in their guns - then they will definitely reexamine that issue too.

Most of these corporations simply bought into Brady's position that "all guns are the problem" - without ever thinking about how in the world they would defend it in a situation like this one.

penciljockey
07-25-2012, 8:55 PM
A fire door is just a door that has been rated to handle a fire for a certain amount of time. The door in question is an exit door, which does not require to have an alarm on it, the only thing an exit door requires is the ability to exit through it with no special knowledge. The only reason you see alarms on exit doors is because the owner of a business wants to know if someone opens it. The alarm is not required by any code.

It should be.

penciljockey
07-25-2012, 8:56 PM
True - but that in no way relieves them of liability. I would argue that by posting "no guns" signs, as well as by simply creating a public assembly, they assume some responsibility to provide security. Ultimately, the courts will decide.

However, I bet that right now every theater is reexamining it's security policies - and if the suits that are sure to come reference the insane policy of forbidding all forms of legal carry while doing absolutely nothing to prevent criminal and psychopaths from bringing in their guns - then they will definitely reexamine that issue too.

Most of these corporations simply bought into Brady's position that "all guns are the problem" - without ever thinking about how in the world they would defend it in a situation like this one.

I think security is the proper step. Just sick of everyone trying to ban guns, because of one lunatic.

Whiterabbit
07-25-2012, 9:19 PM
I would argue that by posting "no guns" signs, as well as by simply creating a public assembly, they assume some responsibility to provide security.

So, you agree that by banning guns in California, the state govt is taking responsibility for providing our security?

I think security is the proper step. Just sick of everyone trying to ban guns, because of one lunatic.

I'm telling you, the answer is clear, we need to ban Batman movies. Sign my petition.

P5Ret
07-26-2012, 11:27 AM
I'm not sure I see how the city would have any liability here? Is the city an active participant in enforcing the policy of the theater chain? Is an ordinance or state law that gives people/business the ability to regulate who comes into their business the problem? How about the no shoes no shirt no service policy at restaurants?

Don't get me wrong I think there is something wrong here, but I just don't see it as a liability issue for the city. Civil rights violation by the theater chain or management maybe but it will take someone a bit smarter than I to figure that one out.

Lugiahua
07-26-2012, 12:43 PM
A fire door is just a door that has been rated to handle a fire for a certain amount of time. The door in question is an exit door, which does not require to have an alarm on it, the only thing an exit door requires is the ability to exit through it with no special knowledge. The only reason you see alarms on exit doors is because the owner of a business wants to know if someone opens it. The alarm is not required by any code.

my point was if people could sue theater for the door, I can see people suing theater for gun free zone.

Would it work? I don't know.

Glock22Fan
07-26-2012, 3:15 PM
I am amazed there was an unwatched, unalarmed exit door that could be propped open. Seems to me that the class of 2012 could each chip in a dime or quarter for Joe Teen to buy one ticket and let the rest of the class in for free. If he was really enterprising, he could put a desk outside and sell entrance at half price!

Unlocked, one way, fire exits are obviously essential. But, while the performance is underway, it seems to me that an exit that is open (or is fixed so that it can be opened from the outside) should set off an alarm (ringing at the security desk, silent in the auditorium) after a short delay, maybe 30 seconds or so.