Which would put this interpretation on denial of rights up under intense public scrutiny, if many lives were saved that otherwise would have been lost.
Because the "permission" would have consisted of a business transaction that accepted money and gave an implied agreement of protection that was not provided by the corporation. While signs were up barring weapons, no sign or notice existed that the corporation would not provide protection against murderous intent or other criminal acts while simultaniously denying 2A rights to it's paying patrons.
The extreme imbalance of such an agreement, when one side directly profited financially, would create an intense examination of contract limits compared to natural rights in quasi-public business environments - where civilians known to be unskilled in self-defense and stripped of weapons were exposed to a reasonable possibility of lethal danger, and a balance of protective power was specifically not provided by the corporate party.
And if that lethal danger possibility was not formerly considered to be reasonable in theaters, it sure as hell is now.
In Texas you will lose your CCW if you enter a posted establishment (and get caught). I never do business in a store that posts. They don’t need my money. However Jorge Zimmerman is finding out what will happen to you when the King’s justice dept gets involved. Good thing in Texas most places don’t post signs. Good pro-gun culture.