When's the first suit against the theater

It's a business that has the right to refuse, just like you have the right to not patronize that store. You have no grounds for volluntarily entering their establishment and choosing to follow the rules. They have no duty to keep you from getting shot.

I'm not sure how it is in other states... actually I'm not sure how it is in my state... I thought all those rules were store policy... meaning not against the law. All they can do is ask you to leave, or charge you with trespassing if you don't.

Honestly, I never understood the point. I mean if it is a Mom and Pop store and they are against guns well that's fine.... but all the big chain stores and malls, movie theaters... I don't get that. I always thought that was just another CYA thing libility release drummed up by a lawyer. Where as the ones that are against the law... bars, government buildings, ect., well those are against the law.

Ya it's tough too... if I CC, and just want to run in real quick... well I'm not leaving it in the car. So I run in, something actually does happen and I take completely justifiable action to defend my life... what are they going to do, ask me not to come back. OK

It does seem a  little weird.... I have absolutely zero expectation that anyone is keeping me safe in public... not even the police. But if you tell me your store is a weapon free zone... then ya, what liability are you accepting that your store is indeed a safe place. If you tell me I can't do that, then what are you doing to take on that job? Again I do not have to use the business, but it does sort of seem like they are accepting responsibility then.

I've been wondering this same thing myself.  My understanding in CO is that you can still carry with a "no guns" sign present, but you have to leave if they ask you to.  If that's truly the case then it may complicate the legal argument.

In Nebraska if you carry where they have a no guns sign it is a criminal offense and you can/will be arrested and charged.  Plus you lose your CCW permit.  It's got a lot of teeth here, so if the same tragic event were to occur I would imagine the liability argument would be a little stronger.

I also agree that the liability lawyers have it completely backwards.  They think that allowing CCW carriers will expose them to negligent discharge injuries.  (because we all know that CCW carriers guns go off randomly all the time)
But in reality they're painting a huge bullseye on their building informing the criminals that there will be no law abiding citizens carrying a firearm so it's safe to rob or massacre at will.

The guy was in the theatre and left via the emergency exit. He propped the door open and then came back in through it.

Then why doesn't this happen on a regular basis? My understanding is that is not a new rule at the theater. As for the liability issue, I think you are the ones who are reading it backwards. It is not the mythical "accidental discharge". It is the CCW carrier who shoots in a confined space and hits a bystander. That is where I would expect the lawsuit to affect the business. If they allow guns in, and one is fired and hits me or my loved ones, then they will be named in the lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it was the gun fired by the shooter (who in this case, obtained them all legally) or by the vigilante who is acting out his/her OWN fantasies in response to the shooter. They were both allowed to bring the weapons into a darkened and confined space by the owner of the establishment.

If you are that concerned about your safety that you will only go places that you can carry, then wait for the movie to come out on DVD in a couple of months, and watch it in your house.

Right, because CCW holders are all vigilanties that fantasize about shooting people.

Things are different when State law allows for CCW and actions are indeed taken to preserve yours or others lives in a legitemate self defense case. All states are different, I don't really have the answers, but things change when it is legitemate and negligent. If I was sitting on a jury I would have a hard time finding a store's fault or libility in a case where a gun man opens up and a citizen stops it and a bystander was injured. Even if you do not have "no guns" when has anyone ever assumed that any store was gun free? Meaning we have never assumed any store takes measure to pat down people coming in to ensure no weapons. I have never seen a metal detector at an entrance. So sign or no sign, I have never assumed it was the stores responsibility to ensure a weapon free store... yet I shop there anyway. And I would never think to blame a store for a gunman walking in and shooting me. I would blame the guy that walked in and shot me. But that's just me.

Wow - both of you are really hypersensitive about ANY statement that you think would mean you had to go without a gun for any period of time. 

I did not say that all CCW holders have vigilante fantasies. In point of fact, my oldest and closest friend is licensed and carries nearly all the time. I think the first time he went gun-less in all the time I've known him was when we went out of the state for a backpacking trip.

What I said was " by the vigilante who is acting out his/her OWN fantasies in response to the shooter". In other words, just as there are people who have thoughts of committing crimes or (as appears to be the case in Colorado), mayhem, there are people who have thoughts/fantasies of "being the hero" or acting like Dirty Harry in the dark underbelly of society. And those people will carry. So unless you think there are NO people who have such fantasies, I think you give away your own fantasies about "they" are planning to take away all the guns.

DanielG - your additional examples provide me with a perfect counterexample as well - I keep a small fire extinguisher in my SUV. I do not have it mounted by the windshield like some wannabe Indy driver in a tricked out Honda. 

Gear, I know you better than to acceot such broad brush treatment like that from you. you usually do not make such grand assumptions.

You gave two examples one criminal, one vigillanti with fantasies... the vigilanti with fantasies was misplaced... but to go from that to a defense saying I "think" that must mean I have to go without my guns for any period of time.... wow. Seriously?

I don't have a CC permit. I have thought about getting one, but the real fact is I find my cell phone to be a pain to carry around. And so far, in my 45 years of life, I have never once been in a situation that would have come out better for me if I was armed. Not one single instance. History tells me I never will. And I don't have "guns"... I have a gun. It sits in a drawer and rearly sees the light of day. But nice to know you just think of me as just another "gun nut" paranoid of loosing my gun and fantasizing about when I can use it on someone.

That is what I say to my "NO MORE GUNS" friends and relatives, no matter what laws are passed... Criminals don't follow the law.

So true.  If somebody is willing to commit mass murder, I'm thinking the threat of a simple misdemeanor is probably not going to deter them from carrying guns into a building.  The only thing it does is prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns into a building.  (oh and it makes the sheeple feel safer)

This might sound silly to some, but from all accounts I have read he was ready to "shoot it out" based on the gear he was wearing.  I am unaware of whether the statements are true that he was going to reload by going to his car, and was arrested then. In any case, he was an intelligent kid wearing bullet proof protective gear.  Perhaps knowing if you are allowed to CCW in CO he was protecting himself against someone in the theater who might be packing and stop him before he was through.  I know in TX, you can CCW unless otherwise asked to leave, as was stated, but I have never heard of this happening.  

I am not pro or con the gun issue.  I think that the majority of the people who have, own, or carry guns do so responsibly.  I think this issue is going to go the way of smoking bans.  Somehow there will be sweeping laws put into place without a lot of thought put into them.  

Going to a theater will soon be like getting through airport security.  

That would describe most of the laws that get put into place.  

The sad part is we the people allow our politicians to come up with more and more restrictions to "keep us safe" due to excessively rare (but horrible) events like this.  We continue to give up more and more of our freedoms so we can "feel" safe.

One of my favorite quotes:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin.

No more sneaking beer and snacks in I guess

Here is an article about the potential or lack of potential for liability

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/07/23/256733.htm

not sure what really happened there, but i know around here at some of our bigger theatres, the theatres that are far back in the building will have their own non-alarmed exits - so you can exit right to the parking lot after your movie rather than walk to the front of the building and walk around - presumably in the dark and less safe way - to your car in the back.

I have not read anything that indicated it was a "Fire" exit door, just that it was an exit door.  I don't know about the Century Theater but my neighborhood theater has an exit door at the back and is not alarmed.  I don't know that an alarm would really have made much difference once he entered the theater. 

To the original poster...I have no idea what the basis will be for a law suit against the theater.  Though I am sure there are many attorneys chomping at the bit to get a piece of this one.