Lawsuit over theater firearm restrictions

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was not only a theater / chain being a gun free zone, it's the entire city of Aurora, CO being a gun free zone. You'd sue the city first!

The point is moot anyway as The city of Aurora, Colorado has strict local gun control laws that override theater policy.

It is Illegal to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the city limits, even if you have a state issued permit.

Click to expand...

I haven’t heard this but if true it’s disconcerting. The Colorado concealed carry laws specifically have state preemption. The statewide concealed carry laws were enacted because of city laws exactly like this and say as much; and yet Aurora goes ahead and passes a law anyway? That should be criminal.

Do you happen to know when this law was passed?

To the lawyers in this thread; if there is a specific state law with preemption, and a city then ignores that and enacts a law counter to the state law, does that city law have any weight? How would a non-lawyer know?

I mean, if I read the state concealed carry info I see statewide laws and preemption. At that point I have no need or motivation to read an individual cities laws. Logically, there aren’t any that apply anyway and yet that assumption could lead to jail time for me or at best a lengthy and expensive court fight.

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/07/27/front-sights-answer-to-aurora-co-massacre/

Ignatius Piazza offers to fund the no CCW allowed lawsuit.

I lived in Colorado, and was not aware that Aurora was a zone that did not honor the state CCW permits.

Would you like to be held responsible if a gang-banger shoots someone in your front yard?

How about your back yard?

At your pool party?

Click to expand...

My house is not an "invitee" - It's not open to the public nor do I charge admission.
So no, not the same.

However, if I had a foreseeable hazard in my home (a rotten bathroom floor) and a guest fell through it and got injured, I could be liable.

Same with a business. It's FORESEEABLE that a violent crime could occur. Hundreds of patrons. Lots of cash on premesis. Late night hours. "Gun free zone."

guns at the movies

i recently went to a local theater to watch the underworld movie, my daughter is only 4, but knows that vamps/werewolves etc arnt real and laughed through the movie, but here's my point, they didn't want to let us in with my daughter after 6.pm.....when i made the point that my wife and i work 10 to 12 hour shifts and this was the the earliest show we could make
they let us in......after i asked for the corp. public affairs office.....

don't argue with the manager, the district manager or the regional.....let them know that it's your money that you won't be spending at the theater, and do it at the corp level........the dollar speaks louder than you can.

when their anylist let them know how many millions of $$$$$ their loosing, policies will change, and if not, well, i have a great inhome theater systm and i can wait a long time to see a movie

but the local theaters didn't post 30.06 and i carry all the time

by the way, the theater in question no longer has that policy since i spoke with their corp. pub. affairs rep.....and i don't remember seeing the same managers their anymore......so i'll leave you with this math problem.................$24 tickets, $30 drinks, popcorn, snacks=$54 times 1 million angry parents, $54,000,000.00

that is a big number for the box office ratings, CHL holders are a powerful force, but it's like voting,......you've got to make yourself heard, and stick by your principals, and values.

Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Colorado has two separate preemption statutes: The CHL/concealed carry preemption (which allows carry in all areas of the state unless specifically prohibited by STATE law) and the general firearms preemption law.

The above lawsuit has to do with the CHL/concealed carry preemption law.

Aurora Code:

Sec. 94-152. - Firearms on private property.

(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to enter or remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment when such property, building, or establishment is posted with notification that the carrying of firearms is prohibited.
(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment after such person has been given verbal notice that the carrying of firearms is prohibited on such property, building, or establishment.
(c)
Possession of a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to repeal, or possession of a permit or temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to pt. 2 of art. 18 of tit. 9 of the Colorado Revised Statutes shall be no defense to a violation of this section.
(Ord. No. 2003-56, § 3, 9-8-2003; Ord. No. 2010-24, § 7, 7-12-2010)

State law on CHL Permitting Authority:

C.R.S. 18-12-214 (1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.


Overall preemption Law:

C.R.S. 29-11.7-104

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

Anyone else see the problem here?

The Regents Case was decided in the Supreme Court on March 5th of this year. This case supercharged CHL/concealed preemption significantly in the state of Colorado. Why hasn't anyone sued? No idea.

My house is not an "invitee" - It's not open to the public nor do I charge admission.
So no, not the same.

Click to expand...

You have security in your front yard?

You have fences and 'no trespassing' signs at the edge of your property?

most of us do not have anything approaching legal notice to NOT enter our yard, or the security to enforce it.

My house is not an "invitee" - It's not open to the public nor do I charge admission.
So no, not the same.

Click to expand...

Do we really think the NRA or our brethren so stupid that we everyone one of these previous events that the laws were not covered, discussed at length and with legal counsel, and lawwsuits suggested and then rejected. Your house may not be the same a for-profit theatre, but many of your obligations are to your guests as are many of the protections by law.

The theater has the right to curtail any and all constitutional rights that are in conflict with its legals rights and does so on many occasions, especially noted at the start of every single movie where the theater so horribly squashes your right to free speech during the movie. They will throw you out of the theater for talking too much. I know. I used to work for General Cinema. I have removed people for excising their right to free speech.

Frank Ettin said:

Now let's see if anyone takes him up on it, and if so if anything comes of it.

Click to expand...

I'm on the guy's mailing lists like a billion other people. I got the same email.

25% of what he says is right on.
50% is iffy but designed to sell training.
25% is over the top but I don't think he's evil/maliciously misleading.

At least he's no more misleading than say a handgun advertisement from any particular brand touting some characteristic and conveniently ignoring others. I've never been to his training. It might be great or it might be terrible.

I think if someone did meet the fine print, whatever it was, he'd kick in some reasonable amount of dough.