[tet68]

No free popcorn for life?

[pingman]

Hope I never have to find out!

[I see my hands]

That it the reason bad is called bad.

[cripplecreek]

Carry concealed and no one will know if you don’t shoot anyone.

[MissMagnolia]

To carry or not to carry ..... here's one opinion on it:

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!

[marron]

If there was a corporate policy against weapons in the theater, the company could sue Holmes in civil court, I suppose.

And maybe the families of the victims could sue the corporation for leaving them unarmed and defenseless. Which they will probably do anyway.

[Talisker]

The reason I ask is because:

1) This is the root of about 400 lawsuits currently being prepared against the corporation owning the Aurora theater where the massacre took place;

and

2) I’d reckon a staggering number of carry permit holders across America are now carrying when they go to theaters, and damn the signs.

So it seems a fairly relevant question...

[kingu]

Violating the posted signs denies permission to be on the private property. You are now guilty of trespassing; I believe it is automatically bumped up so long as there is a posted sign at each entrance to misdemeanor trespass, and carries a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail as the penalty.

Shooting someone while in commission of a crime (such as trespass) strips the legal shield of self defense. Not only can the theater sue you for damages, but so can the perp’s family (assuming you put the damn dog down..) as well as any patron present.

So, yeah, you'd likely end up in handcuffs and in the back of a cruiser if you had been there and successfully defended all those people. And it probably would have been just reported as a sudden fire when someone opened up the perp’s door (with possibly a theory of there being a meth lab in the apartment..)

[SouthernClaire]

Unfortunately, I believe that s/he would be arrested if in a “weapons-free” zone because he or she would have violated the premise’s restriction of “no weapons permitted”. And given today’s hatred for real knights in shining armor (NO offense whatever meant) - and by that I mean real men - the would-be defender of life would probably be given a bit of time to serve to think about and reconsider his actions of life-saving heroism.

Sad.

Pathetic.

God bless and comfort those in their time of need.

[MtnClimber]

There is no Colorado law against carrying there. If they saw you carrying they could ask you to leave and call the cops and charge you with trespass if you refused to leave. I live in Colorado and take the “leave if asked” approach, but no one ever noticed my CCW. If I had been there I would have been carrying or I would have complied when asked to leave. Federal buildings, courthouses with metal detectors and airports past the security checkpoints are exceptions.

[absalom01]

In Colorado it’s basically an infraction, as long as you’re not up to no good. There are enhancements that can make it a misdemeanor or a felony based on your own otherwise scandalous behavior.

18-4-504 Third Degree Criminal Trespass

(1) A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another.

There’s probably civil liability apart from the criminal sactoin as well.

Not sure that would change the ROE’s though. Have to think on that one.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Have a good lawyer first. If you have to use it be prepared to be charged with ‘something’.

[RandallFlagg]

According to my Colorado CCW instructor...
One may carry concealed in all except four places:

Government buildings.
Public Schools.
Places that have stationary metal detecting devices.
Places that have non-stationary metal detecting devices.

If CCW is not allowed, they must make it VERY clear at all entry points.
If they do not, they can ask you to leave.
If you do not, THEN, they can charge you with trespassing.

Private business rules do not trump state law.

[Cvengr]

A firefight inside an auditorium isn’t going to solve the problem. If anything, twice the number of casualties would have arisen from rounds penetrating the walls into the adjacent theaters, while perhaps half the number caused directly by the criminal.

The armed might feel more secure and in control, but not necessarily preventing less casualties. Those with more sane minds are more likely to control the results, if they are armed.

[I cannot think of a name]

You abide by the rule of numbers:

Better to be defended by ONE,

than carried by SIX.

[Talisker]

I guess what I’m getting at is that for any disarmament contract to be viable, it seems to me that an equal assurance of protection must be made towards the disarmed.

The actual reality of what companies are now getting away with is saying, “you agree to pay for our services and risk getting shot to death by a maniac while doing it, while we agree to take your money and let the maniac shoot you while stopping you from defending yourself.”

Now, if that contract is still considered valid, then why are there signs up banning guns? Shouldn’t there also be equally large signs ups addressing the other side of the same issue, i.e. signs banning guns, AND signs reminding patrons that they agree to be shot by gun-wielding criminals?

Reason being is that if the ONLY place that guns were banned was in the rest of the fine-print on the ticket, it wouldn’t be enough of a legal warning - right? Otherwise, why bother with the big signs banning guns in addition to the fine print saying the same thing on the ticket?

BUT, since banning guns makes the patrons directly liable to death by crime, with no allowed method of self-defense by the corporation, shouldn’t THAT also be put up in large print on signs along with the gun ban signs? Don’t patrons have a right to be reminded that they are risking the lives of their families and children, and are surrendering their right to self-defense in case a murder starts slaughtering them, and that that is what they are agreeing to when they pay for their ticket?

And WITHOUT such a specific reminder, is the contract valid, since it is merely “presuming” violent death i understood to be the risk, rather than guaranteeing that people KNOW that that is the risk?

Contract must be understood on both sides - that’s the root of contract law. Big gun-ban signs imply nig notice must be made of this issue, yet big agreement-to-die-like-sheep signs are not available to make clear the other side of the contract.

Lack of clarity creates lack of understanding that voids contracts.

[arthurus]

A man carrying illegally - without a CCW, had he stopped the attack with a well placed shot might be afoul of the law and might lose his firearm to the police but it would be highly likely that a jury would find him innocent and more likely that after a little public righteousness the charges would be simply dropped.

[BB62]

The answer to your question depends on the state you’re in.

As someone else (essentially) said: signs on Colorado do not carry the force of law - you have to be asked to leave, and refuse, before you can be charged. Same situation in Kentucky.

In Ohio, though, if you knowingly enter a conspicuously posted place, you don’t have to be asked to leave in order to be charged.

[varon]

So let's say someone was in the Aurora theater, armed and with a carry permit, in defiance of the signs banning weapons.

When a business posts a sign banning weapons, are they implying that they take responsibility for their customer's safety and can they be held legally accountable?

[elkfersupper]

Well, they don’t even police up the emergency exits, so who would possibly spot your Glock Model 30?