‘Gun-Free’ Zones

[pfalz2]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ichael-potemra

Cinemark Holdings Inc., owner of the theater where these murders took place exercises its rights as an owner of private property in Colorado to bar those who hold concealed carry permits from exercising their rights in its theaters. As a result, law-abiding citizens, including owners of concealed carry permits, who were in the theater that dreadful night were unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves and their fellow movie-goers from the murderous attack visited upon them.

Opponents of the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws call the areas created by Cinemark’s decision “gun-free zones.” They are not. As we discovered to our great horror in the early morning hours of July 20 and as we have discovered in the past, they are free only of the guns owned by law-abiding citizens.

[Merc]

The surviving family members of those killed should bring
a civil law suit against the theater for demanding the
fantasy of " GUN FREE ZONES "

GUN FREE ZONES ONLY apply to law abiding citizens who allow
themselves to be sheep lead to the slaughter.

GUN FREE ZONES do not apply to psychos and criminals

Psychos and criminals love GUN FREE ZONES

Look at GUN FREE ZONE Chicago in the last few days



MERC

[SIXPACK]

Originally Posted by Merc

The surviving family members of those killed should bring a civil lawa suit against the theater for demanding the fantasy of " GUN FREE ZONES

"MERC

I agree, since they don't allow citizens the right to defend themselves, then either they should provide adequate security or be subject to lawsuit.

[klauss]

In respect to private property owners rights they have the right to refuse an armed person on their premises. But they also must be willing to accept the civil and legal responsibilities if they are unable or unwilling to provide adequate security. The reality of providing such security really is problematic. If someone does not care if they live or die no amount of security will stop them from trying. Your only hope is to minimize whatever damage the person tries to do.

Also we as private citizens have the right to boycott such places until they either go out of buisness or change their policy. There are very few movies I feel I need to go to the theatre to see, and the few that do I wait till long after all the crowds are gone and we basically have the theatre to ourselves.

[Gus]

Originally Posted by Merc

The surviving family members of those killed should bring
a civil lawa suit against the theater for demanding the
fantasy of " GUN FREE ZONES "

GUN FREE ZONES ONLY apply to law abiding citizens who allow
themselves to be sheep lead to the slaughter.

GUN FREE ZONES do not apply to psychos and criminals

Psychos and criminals love GUN FREE ZONES

Look at GUN FREE ZONE Chicago in the last few days



MERC

I'm sure they have grounds to do just that.

This is not the first situation like this where a yellow bellied coward forced his ostrich views on others.

Consequences for bad judgement causing additional loss of life should be expensive.

[5knives]

Under Colorado law, ALL the "No Guns" signs are meaningless,

UNLESS in defined school areas, courthouses, etc. the regular places.

OR UNLESS there are guards and metal detectors at EVERY entrance and exit the building has.

Any property owner, IF they find you are armed contrary to their wishes, may ask you to leave, failure to do so is commiting a class 3 trespass.

Or to sum it up in the words of the local Sheriffs Dept lead investigator to a CHP class ...
"Concealed MEANS CONCEALED!"

Colorado is an open carry state, with the usual harassment here and there, but no OC in Denver (home rule), and is legal everywhere else in the state, with the exceptions noted above.

Aurora like Columbine is a haven for transplanted Californians, Wisconsinites, Minnesotans and other vermin, and as usual they brought their supercilioua liberal superiority complexes with them.

But they can't overide state law, and that's as I stated above.

I don't doubt there were at least a couple of firearms owners in that audience, unarmed because THEY would never be so anti-social as to disregard an "Official" sign.

Heard a lot of mistaken comments since the shooting, just trying to present the real picture here, re; CO gun law.

Regards,
...

[10 Bears]

"Gun Free Zones" for criminals are "Free Fire Zones!"

But, the criminal politicians don't understand that bull shit.

[yyz]

victim disarmament zones. yep those that have them should be sued when this happens, be it they be private or public.

[gunnysmith]

http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

Sample Language:

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2008

Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such
conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right
or ability to self defense.

REFERENCE TITLE: Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act
State of Arizona
(sponsoring house)
Forty-Eighth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2008

__.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________

AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding new section 13-3119:

A.R.S. §13-3119. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a person who is a member of a minority as federally defined, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.

[SIXPACK]

Originally Posted by 10 Bears

"Gun Free Zones" for criminals are "Free Fire Zones!"

But, the criminal politicians don't understand that bull shit.

Actually Bears, I think they do.

I think they intentionally do this so that psychopaths are able to do their dirty deeds uninhibited, that way the criminal politicians can further their communist agenda's.

[Gus]

Thanks Gunny

Wasn't aware of this law.

Arizona

[Pogo]

Originally Posted by 5knives

Under Colorado law, ALL the "No Guns" signs are meaningless,

UNLESS in defined school areas, courthouses, etc. the regular places.

Close to the same as it is in Indiana. A person carrying a firearm can ignore those signs, except in places designated by law such as schools, federal buildings, and courthouses.

A business owner can ask a person to leave his premise if carrying a firearm (or for any other reason). And if that person doesn't comply, he is subject to being prosecuted for trespassing.

It is the reason that I always carry concealed. No reason for me to let anyone else know if I'm carrying, and if so, where it is located.