Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit - Page 8

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; Originally Posted by Pistology An honest and direct answer to your honest and direct question is, no, I don't think that private businesses should have ...

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 246
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

  1. #106
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    6,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    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?
    We lock up the weapons if someone does arrive with one and I don't care if the bring it with them...just not on the jumps. But I still disagree with you about this in general. I still beleive that a business has the right to deny people access to their property based on certain things that are not established in case law (race, creed, sex etc...). Lets stop using the word gun and using the 2nd A. Because this issue appllies to the 1st also. Business's have clothing requirements such as some reseraunts you have to wear a tie or a golf course you have to have a collared shirt and no jeans. Some places will kick you out for offensive words on a T-shirt.
    So this is a rights issue not just pertaining to the 2nd A. By making business's allow folks with guns to enter their establishements you might as well say that anybody can express their 1st A rights in any business establishment. Which I disagree a with. If a guy showed up wearing something that said "all jews should die" I would refuse him service.


  2. #107
    Senior Member Array zeppelin03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, OH
    Posts
    884
    I had some support for this thread upon clicking. After reading the link it sounds like the guy wants attention for his business. Why does he need me to send his mailings to everyone I know? Maybe it has something to do with the incredible saving he is offering on life memberships and courses.

    I cannot imagine that a mass shooting is considered a forseeable risk that a company would have to deal with. I personally think this lawsuit is ridiculous. I would hope that companies to not become obligated to care for my safety to this extent. Once the cost of such services is transferred to the consumer I will no longer be able to afford anything.

  3. #108
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by zeppelin03 View Post
    I had some support for this thread upon clicking. After reading the link it sounds like the guy wants attention for his business. Why does he need me to send his mailings to everyone I know? Maybe it has something to do with the incredible saving he is offering on life memberships and courses.

    I cannot imagine that a mass shooting is considered a forseeable risk that a company would have to deal with. I personally think this lawsuit is ridiculous. I would hope that companies to not become obligated to care for my safety to this extent. Once the cost of such services is transferred to the consumer I will no longer be able to afford anything.
    Are we just talking about a mass shooting or safety in general? What if some thugs came in with bats and beat up patrons or a gang fight broke out? They foresee a fire by adding a fire exit door; they foresee food poisoning by adding health inspection. With massive crowds they need to foresee that there might be some trouble. The door unlocks from the inside for a reason and that is to keep others out

  4. #109
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    6,000
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    Are we just talking about a mass shooting or safety in general? What if some thugs came in with bats and beat up patrons or a gang fight broke out? They foresee a fire by adding a fire exit door; they foresee food poisoning by adding health inspection. With massive crowds they need to foresee that there might be some trouble. The door unlocks from the inside for a reason and that is to keep others out
    In Aurora he entered like everyone else: with a ticket. And yeah, anything could happen, A plane could crash through the roof.And since that is the most likely place for a plane to crash the theater should have reinforced the roof

  5. #110
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by taseal View Post
    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.
    In a free society it should though.

    This idea that simply because private property is open to the public that the government somehow now has regulatory control over said business is absurd.

    If a business wishes to make the stupid decision to enact racist policies, then they should be free to do that, just as you are free to not give them your money.

  6. #111
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    In Aurora he entered like everyone else: with a ticket. And yeah, anything could happen, A plane could crash through the roof.And since that is the most likely place for a plane to crash the theater should have reinforced the roof
    you might be on to something it could happen

  7. #112
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    6,000
    @barstoolguru: I am now understanding your thought process:Blame everybody but the idiot committing the crime. These are your words from the thread about the man being sued for not properly locking up his gun and it was used in a murder:
    We are not talking strong arm robbery here; we are talking negligent that cost someone else their life. He chose to leave a firearm in a cabin that he has no direct control over. He left the gun in a place that could have been breached by anyone and it was by HIS own family. When you leave a gun some place that mutable people have access to with minimal effort you should be responsible for it.
    And I do agree that if you go to bed and leave your keys lying out and someone takes the car you are responsible for that too
    I am quite intrigued by your response in bold. Guess the keys need to be locked in a safe also now. What in your mind should a person not be sued for....
    That is not being sarcastic. I am truly curious at what point that an indivdual should not be responsible. I mean, someone comes into my house while I am sleeping and takes my keys and I am responsible....just trying to see where the end of all this madness ends.

  8. #113
    Senior Member Array zeppelin03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, OH
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    @barstoolguru: I am now understanding your thought process:Blame everybody but the idiot committing the crime. These are your words from the thread about the man being sued for not properly locking up his gun and it was used in a murder:

    I am quite intrigued by your response in bold. Guess the keys need to be locked in a safe also now. What in your mind should a person not be sued for....
    That is not being sarcastic. I am truly curious at what point that an indivdual should not be responsible. I mean, someone comes into my house while I am sleeping and takes my keys and I am responsible....just trying to see where the end of all this madness ends.
    we are going to have to file a suit against you. largely for your ignorance. it is a danger to all in this thread. ( cannot insert wink with phone)

    in response to an earlier post I consider mass shootings and other violent acts of this scale to be unforeseeable.
    suntzu likes this.

  9. #114
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    @barstoolguru: I am now understanding your thought process:Blame everybody but the idiot committing the crime. These are your words from the thread about the man being sued for not properly locking up his gun and it was used in a murder:

    I am quite intrigued by your response in bold. Guess the keys need to be locked in a safe also now. What in your mind should a person not be sued for....
    That is not being sarcastic. I am truly curious at what point that an indivdual should not be responsible. I mean, someone comes into my house while I am sleeping and takes my keys and I am responsible....just trying to see where the end of all this madness ends.
    Yes someone is responsible for their own ignorance. If someone leaves there keys out for easy access they ask for trouble, the person that takes the car is at fault too but by giving them access you are at fault. You fail to secure a gun and someone gets it and shoots another; you take some of the blame for not securing it to start with.

    I keep hearing that you want to put the soul blame on one person here but the truth is it takes a series of events for him to accomplish what he did and one of them is the fire door not having an alarm on it. Another is the refusal of gun owners the right to protect them self’s. The business has the right to ban guns but in doing so they take on the responsibility to ensure the safety of the patrons that pay to see a movie and they failed to do that.

    So if your plane crashes into the theater who do you blame? The pilot, the mechanic, the theater for being in the wrong spot; someone was at fault. There was a break down in the system and it needs to be corrected.

    Like I said before that if Cinemark is not found guilty of a 2A violation you will see a flood of these signs going up and when that happens the legal carrying person is going to get burned a lot. Just this morning alone there are two different threads running of legal CCers getting harassed or arrested because of these signs. We need to draw a line somewhere and this is a standing point

  10. #115
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by taseal View Post
    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.
    That is because, as mentioned several times in this thread, there are statutory laws the prohibit that sort of discrimination by places that are open to the public, like stores, movie theaters, etc. There are no such prohibitions in statutory or case law that apply that same standard to the second amendment.
    -Landric

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

  11. #116
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    As has been stated already. The theater can't be guilty of violating someones 2A rights. Would they be guilty of violating someone 1A right is they told folks not to talk on cell phones or text during the movie. NO!!!!! Before every movie they tell you not to and if you don't abide by their rule, they ask you to leave. As a property owner they can restrict what they want, again as has been stated, unless it is againt a protected class, of race, gender, religion ect.

    The question, depending on the lawsuit, will likely be, did the theater take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their patrons. The fact that they did not knowingly let the gunman into the theater to kill and injure all those people will come into play. Depending on what state law is regarding fire exits, there might be some room there if there is a violation, but I doubt it would translate into negligence on this matter. If the faulty fire system caused injury due to fire, that would be another matter.

    Finally, the idea that if you leave something like car keys out and someone steals them and then causes harm is totally wrong. There is nothing that supports that line of thinking. Whether theaters decide to post gun buster signs up, well we will have to wait and see. In some states it won't make a bit of difference because some or any signs may not be valid. I don't anticipate the industry making a knee jerk reaction to a single crazed lunatic.
    Harryball likes this.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  12. #117
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Finally, the idea that if you leave something like car keys out and someone steals them and then causes harm is totally wrong.
    so if I leave my gun out and a child shoots another I should not be responsible either, after all I didn't pull the trigger!

    just out of curousity when is a person responsable for what they do.... when there is no one else to blame!!

    here one.... I was driving down the road and the sun got in my eye's and I couldn't see.... it was the sun's fault

  13. #118
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    6,000
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    so if I leave my gun out and a child shoots another I should not be responsible either, after all I didn't pull the trigger!

    just out of curousity when is a person responsable for what they do.... when there is no one else to blame!!

    here one.... I was driving down the road and the sun got in my eye's and I couldn't see.... it was the sun's fault
    Just out of curiosity...how many people have you actually sued and for what?

  14. #119
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Experts: Lawsuits Over Theater Shooting Stand Little Chance

    Victims Have To Show Pattern Of Crime Occuring On Business Premises, Denver Post Reports
    Survivors of the Aurora movie theater shootings, and the families of those killed, would have little chance if they sue the theater owner or others, legal experts say.
    "The only obvious civil defendant is the shooter himself, and I doubt that he has anything in the way of assets or insurance," Tom Russell, a professor of law at the University of Denver and a personal injury lawyer, told the Denver Post.
    Experts: Lawsuits Over Theater Shooting Stand Little Chance - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

    Aurora Shooting: Mall's Troubled History Of Racism, Crime

    While Town Center hasn't suffered from fleeing stores, it has coped with crime before. Gang activity surfaced at the mall in the early 2000s
    In 2005, during the renovations, a woman was shot and killed outside the Champs store.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1689145.html

  15. #120
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    As has been stated already. The theater can't be guilty of violating someones 2A rights. Would they be guilty of violating someone 1A right is they told folks not to talk on cell phones or text during the movie. NO!!!!! Before every movie they tell you not to and if you don't abide by their rule, they ask you to leave. As a property owner they can restrict what they want, again as has been stated, unless it is againt a protected class, of race, gender, religion ect.

    The question, depending on the lawsuit, will likely be, did the theater take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their patrons. The fact that they did not knowingly let the gunman into the theater to kill and injure all those people will come into play. Depending on what state law is regarding fire exits, there might be some room there if there is a violation, but I doubt it would translate into negligence on this matter. If the faulty fire system caused injury due to fire, that would be another matter.

    Finally, the idea that if you leave something like car keys out and someone steals them and then causes harm is totally wrong. There is nothing that supports that line of thinking. Whether theaters decide to post gun buster signs up, well we will have to wait and see. In some states it won't make a bit of difference because some or any signs may not be valid. I don't anticipate the industry making a knee jerk reaction to a single crazed lunatic.
    I think the next step would be for the theater to pass out full body armor when there customers enter the theater. This would end the stupid lawsuits once and for all.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Sponsored 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 denver concerts
,
powered by mybb minnesota personal injury lawyers
,

powered by mybb movie theater

,
powered by mybb movie theaters in
,

powered by mybb movie theatres

,

powered by mybb wisconsin personal injury lawyers

Click on a term to search for related topics.