TexasCHLforum.com

TXBO wrote:

Richbirdhunter wrote:Do we support property rights in this case?

I'm always amazed at the speed of which people use a tragedy to politicize their personal agenda.

Shooter supported Obama.

Sorry.

One wounded victim is critical and may die. RIP

It shouldn't be a relief, but I was thankful so few died. However, if it was you son or daughter, this was as the lady who testified before congress recently said "our personal 911".

ShootDontTalk wrote:It is a gun free zone. Check the Grand 16 website under Conduct Policy.

The Grand Theatres are private property. If you fail or refuse to follow this Code of Conduct, you will be asked to leave the theatre, and may be banned from all The Grand Theatres. If you fail or refuse to leave when requested to do so, you will be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespassing.


OUR THEATRE PROHIBITS
• Outside food or drink
• Smoking including e-cigarettes
• Possession of firearms or weapons of any kind regardless of whether openly orconcealed, with or without a permit
• Disruptive or disorderly conduct
SNIP...

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

All they served to do was disarm the law abiding people so they could not protect themselves and others.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. They have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

If businesses have to spend money to ban guns, very few will ban guns.

VoiceofReason wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:It is a gun free zone. Check the Grand 16 website under Conduct Policy.

The Grand Theatres are private property. If you fail or refuse to follow this Code of Conduct, you will be asked to leave the theatre, and may be banned from all The Grand Theatres. If you fail or refuse to leave when requested to do so, you will be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespassing.


OUR THEATRE PROHIBITS
• Outside food or drink
• Smoking including e-cigarettes
• Possession of firearms or weapons of any kind regardless of whether openly orconcealed, with or without a permit
• Disruptive or disorderly conduct
SNIP...

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

All they served to do was disarm the law abiding people so they could not protect themselves and others.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. They have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

If businesses have to spend money to ban guns, very few will ban guns.

They didn't disarm anyone. No one was forced to disarm and enter the theater.

jmra wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:It is a gun free zone. Check the Grand 16 website under Conduct Policy.

The Grand Theatres are private property. If you fail or refuse to follow this Code of Conduct, you will be asked to leave the theatre, and may be banned from all The Grand Theatres. If you fail or refuse to leave when requested to do so, you will be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespassing.


OUR THEATRE PROHIBITS
• Outside food or drink
• Smoking including e-cigarettes
• Possession of firearms or weapons of any kind regardless of whether openly orconcealed, with or without a permit
• Disruptive or disorderly conduct
SNIP...

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

All they served to do was disarm the law abiding people so they could not protect themselves and others.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. They have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

If businesses have to spend money to ban guns, very few will ban guns.

They didn't disarm anyone. No one was forced to disarm and enter the theater.

What is this world coming to?

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:It is a gun free zone. Check the Grand 16 website under Conduct Policy.

The Grand Theatres are private property. If you fail or refuse to follow this Code of Conduct, you will be asked to leave the theatre, and may be banned from all The Grand Theatres. If you fail or refuse to leave when requested to do so, you will be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespassing.


OUR THEATRE PROHIBITS
• Outside food or drink
• Smoking including e-cigarettes
• Possession of firearms or weapons of any kind regardless of whether openly orconcealed, with or without a permit
• Disruptive or disorderly conduct
SNIP...

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

All they served to do was disarm the law abiding people so they could not protect themselves and others.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. They have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

If businesses have to spend money to ban guns, very few will ban guns.

They didn't disarm anyone. No one was forced to disarm and enter the theater.

What is this world coming to?

It was just a matter of time.

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'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'll take my chances when going into GFZs like this. Hypothetical...what would happen if someone in the theater was carrying concealed with a permit, they disregarded the signs, that crazy guy got up and started shooting; the guy that carried concealed with a permit, pulled out his gun then shot and killed the shooter and ended the threat?

Would he still get booked with unlawful carry? Would the theater sue him? Should he be acquitted for unlawful carry by CHL holder? Should he be praised by the media?

atxscubasteve wrote:I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'll take my chances when going into GFZs like this. Hypothetical...what would happen if someone in the theater was carrying concealed with a permit, they disregarded the signs, that crazy guy got up and started shooting; the guy that carried concealed with a permit, pulled out his gun then shot and killed the shooter and ended the threat?

Would he still get booked with unlawful carry? Would the theater sue him? Should he be acquitted for unlawful carry by CHL holder?

I have no idea about the rest of Louisiana, but in New Orleans you probably would. They are not very gun friendly.

atxscubasteve wrote:I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'll take my chances when going into GFZs like this. Hypothetical...what would happen if someone in the theater was carrying concealed with a permit, they disregarded the signs, that crazy guy got up and started shooting; the guy that carried concealed with a permit, pulled out his gun then shot and killed the shooter and ended the threat?

Would he still get booked with unlawful carry? Would the theater sue him? Should he be acquitted for unlawful carry by CHL holder? Should he be praised by the media?

No reason to break the law. There are a number of theaters in that area that are not gun free zones. Why put yourself in that situation when there are alternatives?

jmra wrote:

atxscubasteve wrote:I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'll take my chances when going into GFZs like this. Hypothetical...what would happen if someone in the theater was carrying concealed with a permit, they disregarded the signs, that crazy guy got up and started shooting; the guy that carried concealed with a permit, pulled out his gun then shot and killed the shooter and ended the threat?

Would he still get booked with unlawful carry? Would the theater sue him? Should he be acquitted for unlawful carry by CHL holder? Should he be praised by the media?

No reason to break the law. There are a number of theaters in that area that are not gun free zones. Why put yourself in that situation when there are alternatives?

You're right, I would totally find the alternative theaters in the area. I'm grateful texas3006.com It keeps me up to date on all the companies of which won't receive my business.

jmra wrote:

atxscubasteve wrote:I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'll take my chances when going into GFZs like this. Hypothetical...what would happen if someone in the theater was carrying concealed with a permit, they disregarded the signs, that crazy guy got up and started shooting; the guy that carried concealed with a permit, pulled out his gun then shot and killed the shooter and ended the threat?

Would he still get booked with unlawful carry? Would the theater sue him? Should he be acquitted for unlawful carry by CHL holder? Should he be praised by the media?

No reason to break the law. There are a number of theaters in that area that are not gun free zones. Why put yourself in that situation when there are alternatives?

posted earlier that the local theater took down their gun buster signs.... took daughter to see "Minions" today and saw they had at the bottom of a new sign in the window "No weapons of any Kind" wonder how many of them had belt knives on them today.... wonder if i mention that to management what they would say....

a good argument i guess if they say that they're not considered weapons would be about the box cutters that took down 4 planes on 9/11


btw.... since it wasn't a 30.06 it didn't bother me

"No Weapons Of Any Kind".....boy, I bet the mass murders are quaking in their boots. I'm so thankful that Texas spelled out in law about where you can and can't legally carry.

Thankful you got home safe.

ShootDontTalk wrote: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.

VoiceofReason wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote: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.