Skip to comments.ON GUN-FREE ZONES
Posted on 07/24/2012 12:14:38 PM PDT by marktwain
Our last entry here touched on gun-free zones, and whether the theater where the latest mass-murder atrocity took place guaranteed its premises to be a safe hunting preserve for the mad dog killer who wrought horror there. In blog commentary, I was asked if I could provide a link to confirm that the establishment where it happened, and its parent chain Cinemark, forbade law-abiding armed citizens to legally carry firearms there.
Debate over whether a court would determine that the guns forbidden policy carried power of law seems moot: were talking practical reality here. Most of us go by the common sense precept, Do not go where you are not wanted. Armed citizens who could have stopped the killer were clearly notified by the company policy that they were not welcome there.
When you make potential rescuers unwelcome, do not blame those potential rescuers for not being there when the disaster happens, and the death toll mounts because what could have stopped the killing has been banned from your establishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at backwoodshome.com ...
The theater corporation chose to insist on a gun-free zone
then takes on the responsibility of protecting their customers.
This would include not only monitoring the front doors, but
the Emergency Doors as well.
Cinemark failed to secure the Emergency Doors and
permitted an armed gunman to murder their customers with impunity.
They can have such a policy because it is based off their private property rights.
The solution is not to go there. Screw them. Why willingly go into an advertised gun-free zone? Fish in a barrel.
Besides, ccw folks are not cops, we are not charged with protecting others that decide to go around unarmed. We don’t want to be cops and we have no immunity protection cops have, when they screw up on duty.
We reluctantly may have to deal with a threat, we don’t look for them or relish the idea of being forced to defend ourselves.
Obviously in a case like this ccw holders, if armed, would have defended themselves,depending where they were, and if they’d figure they-d have a good chance at not injuring others while firing at the armored asshat.
Want a gun free zone?
U.S. military bases.
By not providing armed guards at entry/exit points cinemark is liable for the deaths.
Or let people protect themselves.
U.S. military bases.
Yeah, that gun-free zone worked real well for Major Hasan's victims at Fort Hood, didn't it?
>>They can have such a policy because it is based off their private property rights.
That right ended with the abolition of the “negro lunch counter”.
Nope. It’s the same right you have not to allow people in your home or land you don’t want there, for any reason. It isn’t because of an immutable trait like skin color.
Personally these people do me a favor by warning me their place is a more dangerous place to be, and i remember and avoid such places.
>>Nope. Its the same right you have not to allow people in your home or land you dont want there, for any reason. It isnt because of an immutable trait like skin color.
You’re wrong there. I don’t open my home as a place of business. If I did, then I would be required to serve all equally. In fact, I would be required to install ramps and handholds to make my home ADA-compliant.
A properly concealed weapon is like underwear: you can’t see it, you don’t know if its there or not, and its none of your business.
When one operates a place of public accommodation he has an obligation to make it as safe as reasonably possible. Banning firearms makes the venue less safe.
Anywhere there are large numbers of people is a potential target for criminals. Therefore it is reasonable to expect patrons will encounter a situation in which they need to defend themselves from a criminal or criminals. Banning the most effective self-defense tool creates a less safe environment and creates a tort when a patron is harmed by a criminal at that venue.
It is no different than blocking a fire exit, leaving a wet floor with no warning sign, or any number of practices that create greater risk for patrons and employees. Businesses create unsafe situations all the time and get away with it, but when something happens they have some degree of responsibility.
Once one business pays big money for banning firearms, very few businesses will take the risk of banning them and everyone will be safer.
The right to private property doesn’t make a distinction between a business owner and a home. A private property owner can set all kinds of policies in his business and what they will and will not tolerate going on on their (THEIR) property. It’s their right because YOU have no inherent right to be there - it is still a private business.
For example they have a right to kick you off their property if you make a disturbance. They can refuse service if they require a certain dress code you do not meet. If THEY are stupid enough to believe that having a “No Guns” policy on their property makes their business safer, then they have the right to be stupid and believe that. You don’t have an inherent right to do whatever you want on THEIR property.
The nature of this right is the same fundamental right that we have in our own homes. As many people own their own places of work, as owners, they have those rights. They can’t violate the law with illegal policies, but a “no gun” policy is not illegal. Damn stupid, but in this case stupid isn’t illegal.
>>The right to private property doesnt make a distinction between a business owner and a home. A private property owner can set all kinds of policies in his business and what they will and will not tolerate going on on their (THEIR) property. Its their right because YOU have no inherent right to be there - it is still a private business.
I’m not talking about the Right TO Private Property. I’m talking about how the law has interpreted what you can and cannot do with your own private property once you decide to open it as a public business.
You have to obey zoning laws. You have to serve all people equally without regards to age, sex, race, etc, etc, and that list keeps growing every year as new victim classes lobby for special favors.
You have to make improvements to comply with environmental regulations. Or you are prohibited from improvements to satisy the same.
You have to make improvements to satisfy ADA compliance.
These are just the first ones to pop into my head. The government has already got its fingers in your business as soon as you open it.
So, to be compliant on all the things listed above and then to discriminate against a person for carrying a weapon that you can’t even see is wrong.
To say that you are happy that they post their intent to discriminate is like saying that a restaurant with a “negro lunch counter” is ok because it just tells the blacks to go someplace where they are welcome. After all, it IS private property, right?
FRiend, where did I say I was happy with them posting they are a no free gun zone? You are a liar and you need to apologize for lying about that.
Clearly you are a selective reader. I can’t talk with people who only selectively listen. You must drive people around you absolutely nuts.
The converse, of course, should be true. Sites that allow concealed and open carry are responsible for the defense of individual on their premises.
You said this:
“Personally these people do me a favor by warning me their place is a more dangerous place to be, and i remember and avoid such places.”
When someone does me a favor, I am happy. Most people are. What kind of person is not happy when someone does them a favor?
You are really funny. Margaret Cho funny. You go, girl.
Seriously? That’s all you’ve got? Some bad logic and an underdeveloped debate, followed by a charge of lying with a hysterical demand for an apology and then an attack on my gender?
You need to go back to your MoveOn.org buddies.
And as I said, you need to learn how to read. Not just skip over stuff that provides context. And then get pissy at people because they don’t think your attempt to feign ignorance at misunderstanding the context of “doing someone a favor” is in this particular discussion.
So just call it a day and “move on”, yourself.