Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

This is a discussion on Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Seems to me that there are two elements here; to what extent can private property owners regulate their customers, which is a balance, and to ...

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 246
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,661
    Seems to me that there are two elements here; to what extent can private property owners regulate their customers, which is a balance, and to what share of liable do they assume if by limiting the customers right to exercise theirs?

    Even though the business may be privately owned, it does promote public participation. So, in this light, I do not feel like it is the same as private property such as your home or property.

    I do believe that a business assumes some responsibility for your safety if they forbid you to be responsible for yourself. The question is how much?
    10thmtn, Pistology and baren like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    Lets be clear folks, the Constitution protects citizens from the actions of the government, not individuals or private enterprise. Unless there is case law or statutory law to the contrary (such as the various anti-discrimination laws), only the government can actually violate anyone's constitutional rights. Therefore, the second amendment cannot be used as an argument against the posting of signs on private property nor are the posters of those signs violating anyone's rights. As property owners, they have the right to post or not post, or otherwise use their property as they see fit within the bounds of the law. No one who entered the theater that night had their rights violated, plain and simple.

    Whether or not a lawsuit could be successful against the theater for failing to provide adequate security is a matter for the jury, judge, etc. I suspect such a lawsuit would fail were it to make it to court, but I also suspect a good chance of a settlement before trial. Businesses are required to provide a reasonably safe environment for their customers, they are not expected to foresee any possible circumstance where someone could be injured or killed. Unless the exit door the shooter used was somehow in violation of code it is highly unlikely that I court would find the theater responsible for injuries caused by the criminal act of a person who was not an employee of the theater.
    The theater is in violation of the Second Amendment. And your dismissal of violations of civil rights by anti-discriminatory laws is significant. Imagine driving through some small town along a lonely interstate after a long day perhaps without the luxury of planning and calling ahead. You need to stop, but every rest place is posted, or, in the case of discrimination, segregated.

    Sure, its different if its a non-essential entertainment venue in a fairly large population center with plenty of options. But the principle applies. Government is facilitating indirect violation of rights.

    Think out of the box. This lawsuit isn't about business as usual. It's about a better understanding of human rights that our country is supposed to protect. Government should never endorse arbitrary restrictions of the freedoms of honest citizens. This is a case to recognize the right of honest citizens to bear arms.

    It is not a violation of rights or freedoms to require that businesses honor the Second Amendment and to demand no infringement on the right to keep and to bear arms. I don't question Mr. Piazza's motives. It is the theater that is inviting litigation with its extraneous posting resulting in the involvement of hundreds of fire, police, and other law enforcement agents. And, IMO, the posting is one reason that coward, James Holmes, chose the venue for his heinous and senseless act of random violence.
    barstoolguru and baren like this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  4. #93
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Your logic says that nobody can say no to guns anywhere......that sir is plain wrong. I private person should be able to say no guns on my property and a business should be able to do the same.

    The government can take away your 2A rights...not a movie theater. They did not come to your house and force you to remove your arms.

    Lets use me as an example. I refuse to allow folks to carry while they are students skydiving or for tandem jumps. It is for their safety and mine. So, do you think I should be required to instruct someone that insist on carrying or get arrested or sued because I am denying their 2 A rights?

  5. #94
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    well if you follow the logic here that a business has the right to refuse you service because you have a firearm then the same business can refuse a black man the right to service as well as a Mexican, Jew , Italian, homeless, the blind, hearing impaired and the handicapped. Maybe I don’t like you because you’re fat so we will include them too and while we are at it the ugly. After all they have the right to refuse for any reason… RIGHT!!!

  6. #95
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    well if you follow the logic here that a business has the right to refuse you service because you have a firearm then the same business can refuse a black man the right to service as well as a Mexican, Jew , Italian, homeless, the blind, hearing impaired and the handicapped. Maybe I don’t like you because you’re fat so we will include them too and while we are at it the ugly. After all they have the right to refuse for any reason… RIGHT!!!
    In a free society, they would have exactly that right, just as you could come onto the internet and lead the boycott against those racist scumbags.

  7. #96
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    well if you follow the logic here that a business has the right to refuse you service because you have a firearm then the same business can refuse a black man the right to service as well as a Mexican, Jew , Italian, homeless, the blind, hearing impaired and the handicapped. Maybe I don’t like you because you’re fat so we will include them too and while we are at it the ugly. After all they have the right to refuse for any reason… RIGHT!!!
    I actually expected that answer...isn't worth a reply though

  8. #97
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 25,650'
    Posts
    12,215
    Starbucks grande extra hot triple non fat decaf two pump vanilla no foam latte with cinnamon and chocolate
    I'll take your "Why Bother" and raise you a French roast double with light sugar.
    barstoolguru likes this.

  9. #98
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    In a free society, they would have exactly that right, just as you could come onto the internet and lead the boycott against those racist scumbags.
    I don't have to; all I have to do is join the many organizations that already do (which I do) ... like that same ones that gave fought to give you the right to carry in the first place (if you do). Owning a gun and fighting for the right to carry is an uphill battle, once you let off the gas you come to a stop.
    I am like the rest of us I want to drink from the water fountain that is for everyone and not for the non-carrying folks only

  10. #99
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    well if you follow the logic here that a business has the right to refuse you service because you have a firearm then the same business can refuse a black man the right to service as well as a Mexican, Jew , Italian, homeless, the blind, hearing impaired and the handicapped. Maybe I don’t like you because you’re fat so we will include them too and while we are at it the ugly. After all they have the right to refuse for any reason… RIGHT!!!
    Actually, unless the reason they refuse service is because a person is a member of a protected class (which is covered in statutory and case law) they can do exactly that. The homeless, fat, and ugly are not protected by anti-discrimination laws. So, a business could refuse service to such people if it so chose.

    People don't seem to understand that the constitution protects us from the government, not private business. A private business cannot violate someone's second amendment rights. I don't know why this is so hard to understand for some people, but clearly it is. A burglar, for instance, cannot be charged with violating one's civil rights in federal court for making an unreasonable search and seizure of one's home. The same principle applies to the second amendment vs. private entities. I would prefer that businesses not post their property, but I can't sue them (successfully) for violating my rights if they choose to do so. I can, however, take my business elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The theater is in violation of the Second Amendment.
    No, it isn't, unless it is a government theater, then one might be able to make a case of it in court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    And your dismissal of violations of civil rights by anti-discriminatory laws is significant. Imagine driving through some small town along a lonely interstate after a long day perhaps without the luxury of planning and calling ahead. You need to stop, but every rest place is posted, or, in the case of discrimination, segregated.
    I didn't dismiss it, I pointed out that such anti-discrimination laws exist, and private entities that are open to the public, like businesses are bound by them. No such statutory or case law in reference to the 2nd amendment exists at the federal level that applies to private property/business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Sure, its different if its a non-essential entertainment venue in a fairly large population center with plenty of options. But the principle applies. Government is facilitating indirect violation of rights.
    Then sue the government about the issue. The theater is following the law, if such law allows posting to have legal effect, then the government is responsible. The only exception would be if one could prove that the theater was acting as an agent of the government. That would be a very hard sell in this case. If the posting his no legal relevance, then it is merely the preference of the business and the most that they can do is ask you to leave if discovered. Since concealed carry permit holders are not a protected class, they would be perfectly within their rights to deny service to one on that basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Think out of the box. This lawsuit isn't about business as usual. It's about a better understanding of human rights that our country is supposed to protect. Government should never endorse arbitrary restrictions of the freedoms of honest citizens. This is a case to recognize the right of honest citizens to bear arms.
    Thinking out of the box rarely works in the courts. However, again, the government would be the proper target of a lawsuit that alleged a violation of human rights, not the theater.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    It is not a violation of rights or freedoms to require that businesses honor the Second Amendment and to demand no infringement on the right to keep and to bear arms. I don't question Mr. Piazza's motives. It is the theater that is inviting litigation with its extraneous posting resulting in the involvement of hundreds of fire, police, and other law enforcement agents. And, IMO, the posting is one reason that coward, James Holmes, chose the venue for his heinous and senseless act of random violence.
    You are welcome to your opinion. However, it is still the fact that absent statutory or case law to the contrary a private entity cannot violate civil rights, only the government or its agents can.
    suntzu, farronwolf and Harryball like this.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  11. #100
    VIP Member Array Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    2,782
    The suit would likely not be for loss of rights but for failing to provide an environment that was free from recognized hazards. Customers would have a reasonable expectation that they have a secure environment.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yoda, I am, yes.

  12. #101
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    I have the answer to the insanity of Gun Free Zones and I am putting my money where my mouth is by paying the legal fees of the first victim to file a very specific lawsuit against the Cinemark Movie Theater chain that denied responsible citizens their right to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves against the murderous rampage of a deranged killer.
    this is the whole point of him funding the suit is to go after them for denying their right to self-protection and then not having the enough security to make it a safe environment

  13. #102
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    Actually, unless the reason they refuse service is because a person is a member of a protected class (which is covered in statutory and case law) they can do exactly that. The homeless, fat, and ugly are not protected by anti-discrimination laws. So, a business could refuse service to such people if it so chose.

    People don't seem to understand that the constitution protects us from the government, not private business. A private business cannot violate someone's second amendment rights. I don't know why this is so hard to understand for some people, but clearly it is. A burglar, for instance, cannot be charged with violating one's civil rights in federal court for making an unreasonable search and seizure of one's home. The same principle applies to the second amendment vs. private entities. I would prefer that businesses not post their property, but I can't sue them (successfully) for violating my rights if they choose to do so. I can, however, take my business elsewhere.
    Are you saying, that "71 people were shot in one theater. "Oh well, it isn't the government that is in direct violation; and the rights of business to operate an environment that threatens its patrons is supreme to the rights of the patrons to self defense"?
    The Constitution limits government and affirms the protection of natural and civil rights. Surely this case is expected and may establish law. Mr. Piazza doesn't need the money, but the victims may.

    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    No, it isn't, unless it is a government theater, then one might be able to make a case of it in court.
    The way one may make a case of the Ft. Hood shooting? You're definitely thinking out of the box, because, AFIK, with dozens of lawsuits regarding Ft. Hood, nobody tried that legal tack. There are government theaters on government military bases off-limits to private firearms. I think that Mr. Piazza is soliciting for a better case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    I didn't dismiss it, I pointed out that such anti-discrimination laws exist, and private entities that are open to the public, like businesses are bound by them. No such statutory or case law in reference to the 2nd amendment exists at the federal level that applies to private property/business.
    This case, or one like it, may change that. It took people going to court, among many things, to change segregation and to bring justice and freedom to a class of people denied. I get that we have a choice to carry or not whereas one lacks ability to change certain racial or physical, etc., characteristics about himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    Then sue the government about the issue. The theater is following the law, if such law allows posting to have legal effect, then the government is responsible. The only exception would be if one could prove that the theater was acting as an agent of the government. That would be a very hard sell in this case. If the posting his no legal relevance, then it is merely the preference of the business and the most that they can do is ask you to leave if discovered. Since concealed carry permit holders are not a protected class, they would be perfectly within their rights to deny service to one on that basis.

    Thinking out of the box rarely works in the courts. However, again, the government would be the proper target of a lawsuit that alleged a violation of human rights, not the theater.

    You are welcome to your opinion. However, it is still the fact that absent statutory or case law to the contrary a private entity cannot violate civil rights, only the government or its agents can.
    State and local laws are various regarding posting. I want a case to force the government to preempt and give uniformity under the Second Amendment. Some states have laws that prohibit places that sell lodging rooms can't bar guns in those rooms. What is the legal difference that says one who pays to take a shower and to sleep for a few hours has a right to keep and to bear arms but one who sits in a dark theater for two hours and forty minutes doesn't? Such patchwork can't be good law.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  14. #103
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Your logic says that nobody can say no to guns anywhere......that sir is plain wrong. I private person should be able to say no guns on my property and a business should be able to do the same.

    The government can take away your 2A rights...not a movie theater. They did not come to your house and force you to remove your arms.

    Lets use me as an example. I refuse to allow folks to carry while they are students skydiving or for tandem jumps. It is for their safety and mine. So, do you think I should be required to instruct someone that insist on carrying or get arrested or sued because I am denying their 2 A rights?
    An honest and direct answer to your honest and direct question is, no, I don't think that private businesses should have to conform to blanket dictates. It's interesting that you use the wording, "instruct someone that insists on carrying...." Is it correct that you don't deny entrance or any service that you offer to people who carry except the actual diving/jumping? It isn't unusual to restrict guns and ammo in certain areas.
    We were restricted in the training room when I got my permit at the gun store. The instructor was training in gun handling. So going hot was not an option. Part of the training was target shooting. So I was restricted by a trainer in in one area of a LGS business but not another.
    You have your reasons that are specific to the activity of your business. And I have no problem voting with my feet. Posting isn't an issue where I live, anyway. But, I think, the arbitrary restriction of carrying is the worse offense than the extension of 2A to general gatherings even at private businesses.
    One school of thought is that private businesses may do what they may, and, with protected classes, barring firearms is down the list. I can subscribe to that since there is no harm in the barring until there is harm in the barring. Then we seek legal remedy.
    With what of this do you disagree?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  15. #104
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Are you saying, that "71 people were shot in one theater. "Oh well, it isn't the government that is in direct violation; and the rights of business to operate an environment that threatens its patrons is supreme to the rights of the patrons to self defense"?
    The Constitution limits government and affirms the protection of natural and civil rights. Surely this case is expected and may establish law. Mr. Piazza doesn't need the money, but the victims may.
    I think you are mistaking my opinion (based on experience) on how the system works with agreeing with how the system works. At any rate we are dealing with two core issues, property rights and firearms rights. Which is more important? The fact remains that at the present time only the government can violate anyone's rights related to the second amendment, nothing restricts private entities from denying service to people with firearms if they so choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The way one may make a case of the Ft. Hood shooting? You're definitely thinking out of the box, because, AFIK, with dozens of lawsuits regarding Ft. Hood, nobody tried that legal tack. There are government theaters on government military bases off-limits to private firearms. I think that Mr. Piazza is soliciting for a better case.
    Just because no one did doesn't mean they couldn't have. Second amendment cases are not a sure thing legally, if better arguments exist, it is a lot smarter to use those arguments. Heller is only a couple of years old, and it was a 5-4 decision that could have just as easily gone the other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    This case, or one like it, may change that. It took people going to court, among many things, to change segregation and to bring justice and freedom to a class of people denied. I get that we have a choice to carry or not whereas one lacks ability to change certain racial or physical, etc., characteristics about himself.
    It might, but I wouldn't hold my breath, it is hardly a sure thing. IMO the difference the courts will see is the ability to choose vs. something that cannot be chosen like race, sex, age, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    State and local laws are various regarding posting. I want a case to force the government to preempt and give uniformity under the Second Amendment. Some states have laws that prohibit places that sell lodging rooms can't bar guns in those rooms. What is the legal difference that says one who pays to take a shower and to sleep for a few hours has a right to keep and to bear arms but one who sits in a dark theater for two hours and forty minutes doesn't? Such patchwork can't be good law.
    The primary difference is that when one rents a hotel room, one is leasing it for a specified time, and as such, has ownership rights to it for that time. The same is not true of a theater. Patchwork laws may not be the right way, but as long as we have 50 different states with 50 different legislatures, that is the way it will be.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  16. #105
    Senior Member Array taseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Boca Raton, FL
    Posts
    907
    So what would happen if they had a sign that said 'WHITES ONLY'? Because they are a movie theater, they have the right to refuse blacks service?

    it's not a govt, so they can refuse blacks? don't go there if you don't support their idea?

    It just doesn't work that way.

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ccw instructor sued

,

cinemark lawsuits

,

franklin county ccw denial

,

lawsuit against cinemark no firearms

,

powered by mybb area 51

,

powered by mybb class action lawsuit

,
powered by mybb florida building codes
,
powered by mybb minnesota personal injury lawyers
,
powered by mybb movie listing
,

powered by mybb movie theater

,

powered by mybb movie theatres

,

powered by mybb wisconsin personal injury lawyers

Click on a term to search for related topics.