“when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns...”
The shooter didn’t need body armor.
He just needed to look for a no-guns sign. And he found one at Cinemark.
All these stupid rules do is prevent normal people from being able to defend themselves. Apparently the nut case last night violated theatre policy, but no one was able to put a bullet in his head and consequently a dozen people are dead.
Sheeeze!
/sarc. Just in case.
BTW, Here a great video on the subject:
Make your own Gun Free Zone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhgzcioPet8&feature=player_detailpage
Sad thing is, there are some who would actually believe a sign or a policy would keep them safe.
We don't need to follow the FAILED POLICIES OF THE PAST! And this is a Big Example of a FAILIED POLICY.
Apparently Cinemark neglected to put a “No Guns” sign on the side door through which the miscreant entered.
And 12 people paid with their lives.
If only there’d been a sign.
A victim with a concealed carry permit needs to sue corporate liberals. If they are going to disarm the customes so they can not defend themselves, they could at least provide armed guards to protect them from the one who does not objey the law. They left those people as sitting ducks.
Target-rich environment.
I’m sure Mr. Holmes will be getting a sternly worded letter about this....
Wait... so this article is claiming that maniac criminals intent on shooting innocents and children aren’t deterred by “no gun” policies?
Stay out of theatres that won’t allow licensed to carry patrons to keep their sidearms. Part of this tragedy (loved only by the rat in the White Hut) or all could have been avoided by one gun-toting patron.
Cinemark should be fully liable for all deaths and injuried from this shooting. You ban firearms, it should be interpreted as accepting the responsibility to provide the full protections firearms would otherwise provide for your patrons. If you don’t have enough armed guards to shoot a killer who runs amuck, then you should be fully liable for disarming people who otherwise would be able to protect themselves except for your ban.
And that liability should reach not only the company, but every corporate officer and member of the board generally, as well as every involved employee at the site of crime, personally.
Where contracts reach out to deprive rights, contracts should lose. there is a fundamental fight between those two powers, and the atrocities of the world we live in today are almost universally attributable to letting contracts - especially corporate contracts - trump personal rights.
I wonder if any Licensed Concealed Carriers were wounded and, if so, would that open the door for a suit against the owner for his “assumption of safety” in his establishment. He didn’t provide them safety and he prevented them from protecting themselves. Just a thought!
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. does not permit legally carrying citizens with CCW.But Cinemark Holdings will permit a terrorist to exit through an
Emergency Exit and re-enter with weapons to commit mass murder.People need to sue Cinemark down to their sox.
Which I routinely ignore. And no one’s the wiser.
“Cinemark doesn’t allow anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry legal firearms in their theaters.”
So Cinemark. aside from 12 known dead and 71 shot, how is that policy working out for you?
In Texas, NO-GUN signs MUST be as follows. Anything else is not legal warning:
PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
It’s called the 30.06 sign...Can’t say I’ve seen a lot of legal ones.
I carry mine into every establishment with that sign. If nothing happens no one knows. If something happens then it was well worth the risk.