Theater Shooting Reported in Lafayette, LA

[anygunanywhere]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

Is there a legal reason to enforce no smoking? In many instances yes. Not in all cases.

What I am getting to is that no smoking ordinances are in place for the public health.

The gun free zones are in place for public safety, so they say.

They rigorously enforce no smoking.

They do not rigorously enforce the no guns. They openly and brazenly ignore the stupidity of their public safety no gun stance. These lunatics invade these open killing fields and slaughter the masses. No one connects the dots. More attention and authority is given to enforcing no smoking than the no guns. These idiots expect people will respect their no gun killing zones. These zones have the effect of law but they are unenforceable. They are unenforceable but NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MURDERS. Those that perpetuate this lunacy should be prosecuted.

Apples and Oranges. Businesses can be fined for not enforcing no smoking ordinances, no requirement exists for no gun zones. Choose where you take your family carefully as ultimately it is you who decides the risk not the business.

How many are willing to defend the private property right mantra as you lay on the ground with a sucking chest wound, your life blood gurgling out your mouth as you reach for your weapon that isn't there, and all because you had to be somewhere you could not avoid since there were no options. Sometimes there will be no options. You will have to go there and either break the law or be unarmed.

Property rights in public business. Keep trying to sell it. I ain't buying.

[Right2Carry]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

Is there a legal reason to enforce no smoking? In many instances yes. Not in all cases.

What I am getting to is that no smoking ordinances are in place for the public health.

The gun free zones are in place for public safety, so they say.

They rigorously enforce no smoking.

They do not rigorously enforce the no guns. They openly and brazenly ignore the stupidity of their public safety no gun stance. These lunatics invade these open killing fields and slaughter the masses. No one connects the dots. More attention and authority is given to enforcing no smoking than the no guns. These idiots expect people will respect their no gun killing zones. These zones have the effect of law but they are unenforceable. They are unenforceable but NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MURDERS. Those that perpetuate this lunacy should be prosecuted.

Apples and Oranges. Businesses can be fined for not enforcing no smoking ordinances, no requirement exists for no gun zones. Choose where you take your family carefully as ultimately it is you who decides the risk not the business.

How many are willing to defend the private property right mantra as you lay on the ground with a sucking chest wound, your life blood gurgling out your mouth as you reach for your weapon that isn't there, and all because you had to be somewhere you could not avoid since there were no options. Sometimes there will be no options. You will have to go there and either break the law or be unarmed.

Property rights in public business. Keep trying to sell it. I ain't buying.

Not sure a theatre is somewhere you HAVE TO be with no other options. Lets keep this to the topic at hand theatre shooting.

[jmra]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

Is there a legal reason to enforce no smoking? In many instances yes. Not in all cases.

What I am getting to is that no smoking ordinances are in place for the public health.

The gun free zones are in place for public safety, so they say.

They rigorously enforce no smoking.

They do not rigorously enforce the no guns. They openly and brazenly ignore the stupidity of their public safety no gun stance. These lunatics invade these open killing fields and slaughter the masses. No one connects the dots. More attention and authority is given to enforcing no smoking than the no guns. These idiots expect people will respect their no gun killing zones. These zones have the effect of law but they are unenforceable. They are unenforceable but NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MURDERS. Those that perpetuate this lunacy should be prosecuted.

Apples and Oranges. Businesses can be fined for not enforcing no smoking ordinances, no requirement exists for no gun zones. Choose where you take your family carefully as ultimately it is you who decides the risk not the business.

How many are willing to defend the private property right mantra as you lay on the ground with a sucking chest wound, your life blood gurgling out your mouth as you reach for your weapon that isn't there, and all because you had to be somewhere you could not avoid since there were no options. Sometimes there will be no options. You will have to go there and either break the law or be unarmed.

Property rights in public business. Keep trying to sell it. I ain't buying.

There's always an option. Never in my adult life have I had an instance where I had no other option than to enter a privately owned business unarmed.

[Keith B]

Guys, I am gonna ask you please trim down the quotes on your posts. They are getting huge and have way too much in the individual topic.

Thanks!!

[philip964]

Guys, I am gonna ask you please trim down the quotes on your posts. They are getting huge and have way too much in the individual topic.

Thanks!!

Good idea!

[VoiceofReason]

I am not a lawyer but I don’t believe there has to be a criminal law requiring a business to provide a safe place to shop in order to sue him/her for not doing so.

I know people have sued hotels, apartment complexes and maybe some other businesses (I don’t know) and prevailed because the establishments did not provide adequate security for their customers. It was the only way to get some businesses to do something.

I am sure that if those businesses that put up “no guns” signs had to spend some money making sure a criminal didn’t just walk by it with a gun, you would see a lot fewer signs.



Postby Keith B » Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:00 pm

Guys, I am gonna ask you please trim down the quotes on your posts. They are getting huge and have way too much in the individual topic.

Thanks!!

Done

[jmra]

Can you provide links to those cases? I am most confident that there are other factors that were part of those decisions that are totally unrelated to the current discussion.
Businesses create gun free zones because bean counters are telling them it is the best way to limit their liability. If multiple lawsuits existed creating a financial liability for creating gun free zones they would disappear overnight.