Lawsuit over theater firearm restrictions
- Thread starter docsleepy
- Start date
- Status
B1gGr33n
Member
Not likely. If there were any present, they willfully complied with the policy. I'm no lawyer, but that seems cut and dry to me. That's why I avoid places that seek to disarm citizens like the plague.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
The theater is private property. They can make any rules that they want. You don't have to go there.
Bobson
Member
This is in activism, right? A lawsuit would be a great idea, even without the slightest chance of winning. The type of lawsuit whose purpose is to make a statement.
Unfortunately, it would take financial support behind a willing individual, who was both at the theater that night, and a CHP holder (as the OP said). Get a conservative mainstream media group in on it.
Easy to see how something like that might be effective in winning new supporters for the cause. Someone should contact the NRA and have them get on this wagon. Financial support is right up that alley. As an NRA member, I'd be more than happy to see my money go to an effort like this.
Unfortunately, it would take financial support behind a willing individual, who was both at the theater that night, and a CHP holder (as the OP said). Get a conservative mainstream media group in on it.
Easy to see how something like that might be effective in winning new supporters for the cause. Someone should contact the NRA and have them get on this wagon. Financial support is right up that alley. As an NRA member, I'd be more than happy to see my money go to an effort like this.
barstoolguru
Member
Yes it is a private theater BUT if they restrict your right to carry a gun they have to provide adequate security and if that is not met YOU can sue them for not properly securing the theater
Can you cite some legal authority to support that claim?barstoolguru said:
In general, a business will not be held responsible for the criminal acts of a third party. The few times in which a business has been held liable, there have been some unique circumstances, e. g., a bar can have problems if it serves someone who is obviously intoxicated or who is known to be a problem; or a while ago, a Denny's had to pay as a result of a late night incident, but only because there had been prior incidents so it was on notice that its late hours presented special risks.
But without something special, a business will not be held liable.
While I agree I wonder how much Heller changes this. We now have the Constitutional right to protect ourselves. A place that serves the public even privately owned does not have a right to trample on your Constitutional rights. Can a theater ban black people or gays? Can an apartment ban legal firearms possession? I'm not sure its as cut and dried as its made out to be.
Shopping malls for instance can not ban religious or political pamphlet dissemination provided its not interfering with normal activities. I suspect the reality is, there is no legal precedent certainly not since Heller.
Not at all. Not an iota. Not one little bit.burk said:
The Constitution regulates government. It does not regulate the conduct of private parties. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614, 1 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added:
The Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the constitutionally described right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That is different from the right of self defense, which predates the Constitution by hundreds of years. Our law of self defense flows from the Common Law of England and is now protected by case law and statutes in the several States.burk said:
Actually, it does. The Constitution does not regulate the conduct of private parties.burk said:
What businesses can not do is violate various statutes that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases such as race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and some others, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. These various anti-discrimination laws only prohibit discrimination on those various specified grounds. Having a gun isn't one of them.
No, but not because of anything in the Constitution. A theater may not ban blacks or gays because various statutes enacted by Congress or a state legislature prohibit discrimination based on race or sexual orientation.burk said:
In general, yes it can -- except in a couple of States in which there are statutes specifically prohibiting doing so.burk said:
Actually, they probably can.burk said:
[1] There may be a very narrow exception at the federal level relating to union picketing in connection with the business in the shopping center (Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308 (1968), Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) and Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)). But that exception may be doubtful in light of Hudgens.
[2] There is an exception in California because of a clause in the California Constitution, as that clause has been applied by the California Supreme Court (Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)).
Last edited:
Guillermo
member
a friend of mine is an attorney, in charge of thousands of employees (VP of HR)
She tells me that a suit could have basis if
A- a concealed carry holder that was in the theater was disarmed
B- a concealed carry holder didn't go because of the gun-buster sign and a family member was harmed
the lynch pin is that the theater has no reasonable expectation that a guy was going to shoot it up.
traversing the jump from "I got shot because I wasn't armed" to "and you could have known" is a BIG legal jump.
While she supports that, case law, as of this point, does not.
She tells me that a suit could have basis if
A- a concealed carry holder that was in the theater was disarmed
B- a concealed carry holder didn't go because of the gun-buster sign and a family member was harmed
the lynch pin is that the theater has no reasonable expectation that a guy was going to shoot it up.
traversing the jump from "I got shot because I wasn't armed" to "and you could have known" is a BIG legal jump.
While she supports that, case law, as of this point, does not.
leadcounsel
member
I think the argument that carrying a gun is a civil right for a non-prohibited person and therefore any ban on it by a public house is unlawful... a stretch admittedly.
A stretch that goes nowhere. Where in law applicable to private conduct is there general protection for some amorphous "civil rights"? Protected classes and interests are defined in the law with particularity.leadcounsel said:
I had a lawyer friend tell me you can sue over anything (just don't expect to win). Torte cases are notoriously uncertain. I would not have bet that McDonald's would be held responsible for an old lady dumping hot coffee on herself, but they were. So now they have warnings on their coffee cups. I have never seen a warning sign on any theatre with a "no guns" sign that my life may be in jeopardy by entering their establishment. So weren't the owners negligent in not providing at least some security or warning patrons about how unsafe their facility was? And they can't take credit for the police being there, they were there for crowd control in the lobby / outside and did nothing to stop the shooter in the theatre.
Are there any differences if a place charges for admission (movie theater or club) versus a place that one is free to come and go at will (shopping mall, supermarket)?
Once someone pays for an entrance for admission, doesn't that change things in legal aspects? And isn't there some kind of implied contract that one gives to the other (owner to the patron) ... for some kind of reasonable expectation of security and safety that comes along with the payment for admission?
Does the exchange of money for a space in a certain area for a certain amount of time carry more liabilities than if there were no money involved?
Thanks in advance for the answer
mljdeckard
Member
Should we not work at all to SET such a precedent?
Guillermo
member
Midwest,
The company has to have a reasonable expectation that, in this case, restricting your gun rights would cause injury.
Of course they could not know a crazy was going to go shoot the place up.
The company has to have a reasonable expectation that, in this case, restricting your gun rights would cause injury.
Of course they could not know a crazy was going to go shoot the place up.
It has been pointed out that a gunbuster posting is nothing more than a "we'd rather you not" sign in CO since there is no provision for an official prohibition posting in CO state carry law like other states (TX, TN, etc.). That means anyone that would have carried but wasn't because of that posting did so voluntarily.
Unless you or a family member were injured as a result of you the permit holder not attending you probably wouldn't have a basis for the lawsuit. You have to have been personally harmed usually to bring suit.
You might try to find one of the victims or their family to bring such a lawsuit, but an unaffected person probably can't. It is very unlikely at this point that an anguished permit holder who might have been there hasn't come forth already angrily stating if they'd have been allowed to carry they'd have at least had a chance to try to stop the shooting whether they'd have succeeded or not. Remember that they had to get Heller to participate in DC.
***
NOTE: We are not going to have a discussion here in Activism Discussion of what you could have done something if you were sitting in the theater to stop the shooter or not. Those discussions have already taken place in the appropriate forums. Please stay focused on the question of whether a lawsuit against the theater could be brought as a course of action in support of RKBA.
Unless you or a family member were injured as a result of you the permit holder not attending you probably wouldn't have a basis for the lawsuit. You have to have been personally harmed usually to bring suit.
You might try to find one of the victims or their family to bring such a lawsuit, but an unaffected person probably can't. It is very unlikely at this point that an anguished permit holder who might have been there hasn't come forth already angrily stating if they'd have been allowed to carry they'd have at least had a chance to try to stop the shooting whether they'd have succeeded or not. Remember that they had to get Heller to participate in DC.
***
NOTE: We are not going to have a discussion here in Activism Discussion of what you could have done something if you were sitting in the theater to stop the shooter or not. Those discussions have already taken place in the appropriate forums. Please stay focused on the question of whether a lawsuit against the theater could be brought as a course of action in support of RKBA.
Last edited:
Matthew Courtney
Member
If the theatre has exposure, it is more likely because the exit door used to re-enter the theatre didn't lock as it should have.
Guillermo
member
If this is the case, there is no case against them
They did not prohibit concealed carry
mljdeckard
Member
HSO is right, if the plaintiff has no standing in the case, it won't go anywhere.
That's possible if the maniac didn't get up and exit the theater using that door and put something in place to keep it from locking
It won't give any RKBA case traction, though.
B1gGr33n
Member
I can't believe this is still being discussed. It sickens me how people get so sue happy anymore. Those people were in that theater of their own free will, whether armed or not. The whole point of CCW is that YOU DON'T KNOW when some psychopath will attack you. Shame on him for committing that attrocious act, pity them for being unarmed and unprotected, LEARN FROM THIS!
End of rant.
End of rant.
No.Midwest said:
leadcounsel
member
Ah, maybe THIS is the point. The psychopath PICKED this establishment because he reasonably believed it was a 'gun free' zone and that made it attractive to him. He KNEW his targets would comply with the request and be unarmed.
The theater invited only unarmed guests. Had it invited armed guests, perhaps this twisted killer would have not picked these victims at this location?
Stated otherwise, this sign is an advertisement that folks are unarmed. And because the theater probably doesn't provided armed guards at the doors and exits, they MAY be reasonably responsible for the safety of the patrons from an armed person. They stripped away individual's rights to use a gun in defense, but failed to provide armed guards to do that for them.
Maybe this lawsuit DOES have traction.
It is safe to conclude that the shooter would not have opened up at a gun show or anywhere else where people could shoot back.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
