can movie theatres legally do this?

[danprkr]

In Ohio, we passed a law banning smoking in businesses.

Yet another example of the majority infringing on the rights of the individual. If I as a business owner want to ban smoking, guns, or blue pants it should be my business, and no one else. If I ban smoking and my customers all want to smoke while they shop in my store and so go elsewhere I will pay the price, and no law is needed.

McDonald's got rid of ashtrays and smoking in their restaurants long before it was required by law to do so (at least here in TX) simply because thier research indicated that allowing smoking was costing them money.

 

[NinjaFeint]

Simply put it's not a trespassing issue, it is not even a legal issue (IMO) it IS a moral issue......To respect another's wishes while on their property, or not.


2¢ from a "Stuck up ol gun snob"
DeepSouth

I just would not go to the theater rather than not respecting the property owner/business's wishes. I also rather carefully choose what businesses I spend my money at.

 

[smince]

So ,a business of some sort doesn't allow you to CCW on their property?

You can:
A. Stay home and whine about it
B. Go on THR and whine about it
C. Withhold your money from this vendor and find a similar business to patronize that at least doesn't have a prohibiting sign out front.
D. Carry anyway.

Are you willing to trust the safety of yourself and your loved ones to a 911 call from the business if things go south? Because that's the only protection your family will have.

Remember Susanne Gratia Hupp and Luby's Cafeteria?

Put me in the 'concealed means concealed' category as well. As always, Big Boy Rules apply.

I find myself in constant amazement at the attitudes on this board

 

[NinjaFeint]

Yet another example of the majority infringing on the rights of the individual. If I as a business owner want to ban smoking, guns, or blue pants it should be my business, and no one else. If I ban smoking and my customers all want to smoke while they shop in my store and so go elsewhere I will pay the price, and no law is needed.

McDonald's got rid of ashtrays and smoking in their restaurants long before it was required by law to do so (at least here in TX) simply because thier research indicated that allowing smoking was costing them money.

100% agree. They banned smoking in all restaurants and bars in CT. Now I quit smoking a while ago but the state should not infringe upon the right of business owner to cater to a certain demographic. Smoking is still legal so there should be no restriction, the market will dictate what proportion of restaurants/bar allows smoking.

 

[danprkr]

ninjataint

Thanks, it is amazing to me how people don't realize that the flip side of the right to do anything is the responsibility to respect other's rights. Whether it's an individual or a government. Without that respect you have no rights merely privileges granted arbitrarily. And, we know where that leads don't we?

 

[divemedic]

The basis of the Libertarian argument is always that they do not want the government interfering in their property rights. Of course they overlook the fact that forming a corporation to insulate yourself from liability over the misuse of that property is in itself an invitation for government interference, and infinrges upon the property rights of others.

For example: a business commits an offense that causes injury to an invitee. The invitee sues. A stockholder in a corporation is limited in liability to the amount of money he has invested in corporate stock. Thus, the injured invitee may not ever be made whole, due to the intrusion of the government in creating the corporate body.

I would support the property owner position, if the property owner is made legally liable for the safety of the invitees. However, they way things are under the property rights crowd's position, the property owner demands a no weapons policy, and is also insulated from all liability when an invitee is left in a defenseless position.

A property owner's power over his property is not absolute. I cannot, as a property owner, open my property to the public, and then state that everyone on that property is required to have sex with me on demand. I cannot make it a condition of employment that women are not allowed to possess brassieres, tops, or any piece of clothing that covers the breasts. I cannot punch poorly performing employees in the face, nor whip slow cashiers.

 

[Daveboone]

It is a very clear issue that is too easily muddied. A movie theater is private property. To utilize it you obey their rules - like not talking during the movie. That is not a violation of your freedom of speech, its rude. No cell phones. They may tell you no outside food allowed. Most malls (where most movie theaters are) also, whether posted or not have no weapons rules. The owner (not the 17 year old manager, who could care) makes the rules. If it is a concern, exercise your right to go to a different theater, or do something productive like petition the owner to change the rule to allow CCW.

 

[Robert]

Please stop beating that horse Mister, he's already dead...
I do not go to the movie, because they are just too damned expensive. I always find it funny, and sad, that some folks want everyone else to recognize their right to x,y or z and yet refuse to recognize or respect another person's right. The Constitution only prevents the Government from infringing on your rights. The Constitution does not apply to private citizens or private property. And lets face it, the Constitution is nothing more than faded paper is a big glass case.

 

[danprkr]

Oddly I agree you can't assault someone even on your property. What you should do though is simply spend your money elsewhere.

Your views on corporations have some viability given the current system, and you're right in a perfect system corporate protections would be different. Regardless of how they are used now they were originally intended to spur investment by protecting the investors from personal liability. They are not new, they were originally devised to protect sailing vessels on speculative voyages to that voyage only. But like anything they have evolved, and much of that evolution is not always in good directions. One of those evolutions is the ability to assert rights without taking responsibility. Something no true libertarian agrees with.

Having said that the right of the individual not backed by the willingness to respect other's rights - even if we don't agree with how they exercise them - can only lead to bad places for society. For instance I have a friend who would gladly make Catholicism the only legal religion in order to save all us others from our own stupidity. While I would fight her tooth and nail I will NOT try to take her right to believe that.

"I disagree sir with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Paraphrased feel free to post the exact quote and who said it since I can't recall right now.

 

[deadin]

Waaaaa! I don't want the government (or anybody) to tell me I can't do something.

Waaaaa! I want the government to force States to recognize my CPL regardless of where it's issued.

Waaaa! (fill in the blanks)

 

[Walkalong]

Waaaa! (fill in the blanks)

Yep. Poor dang horse, hasn't he suffered enough?

 

[divemedic]

There are two issues here: the legal issue, and the moral issue.

The legal issue is fairly easy. Some states allow property owners to restrict carry, and some of those states attach criminal penalties for disobeying such limitations. That is where these laws become unfair, IMO. (Trespassing is different) Think about it- a movie theater can ask you not to speak during the movie, but you will not go to jail for doing so.

The second issue is the moral one- and this is where the debate here rages. Some believe that a property owner should have absolute authority over others while they are on his property, others believe that there are limits on both the property owner AND the entrant, and still others believe that the RKBA is absolute. I believe that both of the absolutist positions are incorrect.

If you open your property to the public, you voluntarily assume certain responsibilities over the people that you invite onto your property. That is the basis for fire codes, emergency exits, and the like.

As far as I am concerned, the laws of my state do not require me to obey your wishes in regards to my right to defend myself and my family. I will not abrogate that responsibility, unless the property owner has taken steps to secure my defense in my stead. Simply demanding that I disarm, while making no provision for my safety, and refusing to take fiscal responsibility if a criminal attacks me while I follow your policy allows a property owner to assert authority without accountability or responsibility. Demanding that I disarm and hold myself defenseless while refusing to provide for my security is disrespectful of my rights, and I refuse to honor the rights of someone who would so callously leave me to die.

I refuse to disarm so someone can save a few bucks on his liability insurance, unless the law requires it, or unless he has taken steps to insure my safety that go beyond merely posting a sign. When I can, I will take my business elsewhere, but when I cannot, I will continue to carry.

 

[oneounceload]

I would support the property owner position, if the property owner is made legally liable for the safety of the invitees.

Funny, even the police don't guarantee that, nor are they liable if they fail in that regard

 

[wishin]

No, the "no blacks" sign would not be "...violating the civil rights afforded by the constitution

The Civil rights act of 1964 was based on the premise in the U.S. Constitution that "all men are created equal" and therefore are entitled to the same rights.

 

[oneounceload]

As far as I am concerned, the laws of my state do not require me to obey your wishes in regards to my right to defend myself and my family. I will not abrogate that responsibility, unless the property owner has taken steps to secure my defense in my stead. Simply demanding that I disarm, while making no provision for my safety, and refusing to take fiscal responsibility if a criminal attacks me while I follow your policy allows a property owner to assert authority without accountability or responsibility. Demanding that I disarm and hold myself defenseless while refusing to provide for my security is disrespectful of my rights, and I refuse to honor the rights of someone who would so callously leave me to die.

The Post Office doesn't provide that for you, Banks don't guarantee your safety, the churches in Utah do not, yet the LAW allows them to prohibit you.

Most states have some form of prohibition against you carrying in establishments that serve alcohol, even though they are private businesses. If there's one place you're most likely to run into trouble, it's a bar - but you can't carry.

 

[GunsAmerica Fan]

It is entirely statutorial. The state will have in the statute what the deal is with it. In florida, all they have to do is post a no firearms sign and it totally nullifies your CCW. They are such fools because the only people who obey it are the people who respect the law, and would defend them in the event of a robbery or terrorist incident.

 

[divemedic]

In florida, all they have to do is post a no firearms sign and it totally nullifies your CCW.

Uh- no. Cite your authority, please.

 

[NMGonzo]

Yes, the movie theater can but a lot of CCWers will disagree and say "concealed means concealed" "I carry wherever I want to because my right to self-defense trumps property owner's rights" even though those stuck up ol gun snobs can choose just to not go in a place marked "No Guns".

Yeabutt ... we live in New Mexico.

The last guy that was harassed for open carry got about 20k.

That is why snubby's and .380's are for.

deep concealment!

 

[EddieNFL]

Anyone can disagree with the law all you want, but some states have laws allowing the posting of signs to prohibit concealed carry and you ARE in violation of the law by ignoring the signs.

As far as I am concerned carrying firearms in a companies building that is posted as no firearms allowed is disrespectful.

Speed limt signs, stop signs, no U-turn signs, no parking signs...you get the idea.

Lots of disrespectful law breakers on the streets. I suspect most of us posting in this thread are among them.

 

[Justin]

Well now. This thread has been one great big sucking hole of disappointment and stupidity.

I had to check the url of the website just to make sure I was at the right place.

It seems that I am at the right place, just that some of you seem to believe that "The High Road" is a name we picked out of a hat, rather than a statement of principle.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but taking the high road means that you do the right thing, even when it means doing something you don't like. In this case, it means respecting the wishes of a property owner, even if it goes against your personal beliefs. Guess what? That's not always easy. It means you may have some inconvenience introduced into your life in the form of either leaving your weapon at home or in the car, or choosing not to patronize the business with the no-carry policy.

Choosing to violate a property-owner's wishes is not taking The High Road.