General Categories > Carry Issues

Colorado Lawsuits

<< < (2/4) > >>

Mudinyeri:

--- Quote from: LM4202 on July 26, 2012, 02:20:02 PM ---After all, Westroads is still posted despite what happened at Von Mauer.
--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Waltherfan on July 25, 2012, 03:44:51 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Waltherfan on July 25, 2012, 03:44:51 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page