Colorado Lawsuits

[Waltherfan]

I've read that some of the people in the theater in Aurora are suing a variety of agencies for alleged damages.

I wonder how many, if any, CCW holders were in the theater and were not carrying because of CCW prohibited signs (assuming it was posted). They may be able to make a great case against places that post. You'd see signs coming down everywhere.

[cckyle]

I don't know that they would get far in a civil suit, but it does make a good case against the restrictions IMO.  Unfortunately the opposition doesn't see it that way.  We have all heard the statements about how much more dangerous that would have been, had someone been carrying and pulled their firearm.  Chaos would have ensued.  I really for the life of me can't understand this argument. How some people get the notion that having the ability to defend yourself or others with a firearm against someone who is actively shooting those around, somehow makes the situation more dangerous.  Ridiculous.

[HuskerXDM]

I don't know that they would get far in a civil suit, but it does make a good case against the restrictions IMO.  Unfortunately the opposition doesn't see it that way.  We have all heard the statements about how much more dangerous that would have been, had someone been carrying and pulled their firearm.  Chaos would have ensued.  I really for the life of me can't understand this argument. How some people get the notion that having the ability to defend yourself or others with a firearm against someone who is actively shooting those around, somehow makes the situation more dangerous.  Ridiculous.

The sheeple are willing to gamble that they won't be shot in that situation.  They are willing to have other sheeple serve as their human shields.  Having a permit holder return fire, to them, is equivalent to someone closing their eyes and randomly shooting around a room, thus increasing the chance that they will be injured or killed. 

[LM4202]

I don't think they would get very far, they have that standard defense "You chose to go here despite the restrictions".  After all, Westroads is still posted despite what happened at Von Mauer.  Its a shame really.  That's why I don't go to Westroads at all anymore or any malls for that matter.  That's why people have migrated to Village Pointe to shop.  I try my best to avoid places where I can't carry.

[cracked junior]

I haven't been there to verify but i have read there is no guns signs on doors.

[Mudinyeri]

After all, Westroads is still posted despite what happened at Von Mauer.

I don't go to Westroads very often, but when I do I usually use the Dick's entrance.  Have yet to see a sign there.

[ALiesveld]

I wonder how many, if any, CCW holders were in the theater and were not carrying because of CCW prohibited signs (assuming it was posted). They may be able to make a great case against places that post. You'd see signs coming down everywhere.

Maybe, but I can't support a violation of property rights. Nor do I think this would bring lasting change. Forcing someone to allow guns on their property would upset them as much as taking our guns away would upset us.

Hell, I'd be upset if someone told me that I must allow guns on my property. I'll make that decision myself.

[Dan W]

I've read that some of the people in the theater in Aurora are suing a variety of agencies for alleged damages.

I wonder how many, if any, CCW holders were in the theater and were not carrying because of CCW prohibited signs (assuming it was posted). They may be able to make a great case against places that post. You'd see signs coming down everywhere.

As I have been posting elsewhere...

The signs had no legal standing, they could not prevent any knowledgeable CCW from entering because they do not have the force of law.

In Colorado only metal detectors and/or manned security posts could have kept a CCW out of the theater.

The signs can only prevent legal open carry.

Ignoring the signs would have had no legal consequence for a CCW permit holder, unless they were concealing so poorly that the management noticed and asked them to leave, and even then there would be no legal charges to be brought unless the CCW permit holder refused to leave or remove the firearm as requested

[OnTheFly]

This is a tough one.  On the one hand, I believe that the property owner has rights.  They should be able to decide how to run their business and who/what is allowed on it.  On the other hand, if a business denies you the right of self protection, and does not prevent another person(s) with intent of doing harm from entering the property, are they responsible for your safety?  In other words, by exercising their rights, and denying you the ability to exercise your rights, are they liable?  That is a tough question, and possibly a slippery slope.

Fly

[cckyle]

I agree, it is a tough one.  As a CHP holders, we wish that we could cc everywhere.  We know we are not a threat to the common public, anywhere we go.  The state patrol doesn't think we are a threat either as they would not have given us a CHP if they thought we were.  At the same time I wouldn't want the government telling me I couldn't keep someone from bringing a gun on my property(not that I ever would), and I have to respect that right of other property owners to.  That's why we have the anti-gun business list and try to avoid and not support those businesses because of the choices they have made.  Luckily for myself currently most of the time I can avoid these places.  I can't say that will be true in the future, as I hope to be working in a hospital in the next year or so. 
I personally don't think that just because a business doesn't allow firearms on the property, that they are then responsible for your security.  I think it would be a common sense thing to do and a courteous thing to do, but I don't think they are obligated.  Then again, it doesn't make sense to think that a security guard would really be any safer with a firearm than a CHP holder, nor would it be sensible to think that a security guard without a firearm would be able to provide any type of safety(merely surveillance).  I saw an interview once of a security guard with signal88.  He said there main purpose is to provide comfort, surveillance, and to contact police if anything real happened.  We all know how that turns out most of the time.  So they aren't really providing much security. 
The thing that gets me is all of the government places we can't carry.  We pay taxes, and as tax payers all these places are property of the citizens.  Almost as if they are telling us we can't carry on our own property.  Doesn't seem right to me. 

[OnTheFly]

Regarding whether the business is responsible for our safety while on their property.  If the grocery store has a spill of cooking oil and neglects to clean it up, are they not responsible if a customer slips and falls?  This is something the business owner would have some direct control over; however, they could also have control of the entrance.  Customers could be screened for firearms/weapons just as we are at the airport.  I'm sure that would do wonders for their business!  But the point is that it is possible for the business to prevent those with evil intent from entering.

Fly

[Dan W]

One thing I know for sure is they can not deter  "evil intent" with some entrance controls

[OnTheFly]

One thing I know for sure is they can not deter  "evil intent" with some entrance controls

Very true, but they can make a reasonable attempt to remove the tools that would allow them to act on their evil intent.  That is all the TSA can do is deter.  No system is perfect.  There are always holes in the swiss cheese.  The trick is to not let the holes align.

EDIT: Mind you, I am not promoting such an environment.  I'm just playing the devil's advocate.  I would prefer that they just let us carry in their business.

Fly

[cckyle]

Regarding whether the business is responsible for our safety while on their property.  If the grocery store has a spill of cooking oil and neglects to clean it up, are they not responsible if a customer slips and falls? 

I have never thought about it that way, not sure it changes my opinion.  But good point regardless. 

[ALiesveld]

What if they put up a sign on the front door that says spills may be neglected?

I think we go to businesses assuming a reasonable level of safety, and when that's guaranteed and then not provided, we essentially charge the business with fraud. If they're up front about their lack of safety, then it's ok. Hence sign postings and waivers.

"Reasonable level of safety" is mushy and open ended. I suppose it really is up to a court to decide whether the business is at fault or not, because I can't think of a strict set of guidelines that a business should follow. but I also think a disclaimer at the door absolves them.

[OnTheFly]

What if they put up a sign on the front door that says spills may be neglected?

I think we go to businesses assuming a reasonable level of safety, and when that's guaranteed and then not provided, we essentially charge the business with fraud. If they're up front about their lack of safety, then it's ok. Hence sign postings and waivers.

"Reasonable level of safety" is mushy and open ended. I suppose it really is up to a court to decide whether the business is at fault or not, because I can't think of a strict set of guidelines that a business should follow. but I also think a disclaimer at the door absolves them.

That is probably the thing that would protect the business from the liability.  If you sign a waiver or accept the fact that it could be a dangerous place due to the "No Guns" sign, you are taking the risk and the business wouldn't be held liable.

Fly