Theater Shooting Reported in Lafayette, LA

[Javier730]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

[VoiceofReason]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

[jmra]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

[anygunanywhere]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

[Right2Carry]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

[jmra]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

[Right2Carry]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

Apples and Oranges. Show me where the theatre was notified about the gunman and they failed to act.

[philip964]

http://www.khou.com/story/news/nation/2 ... /30609621/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

USA Today written article. Has a anti gun slant. Says gun was purchased legally. Turned down for a CHL. Posed with swastikas, anti abortion, so they are saying he was right wing. USA Today forgets that Nazi stood for National Socialist Party. Mom loaned him money so he could get his life together and commit this crime.
Former accountant, former lawyer, former bar owner.

Had a second magazine.

Linkedin hasn't taken down his page. https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-houser/6b/602/871" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most of the mass shooters like this are 20-25 years old. This is the first shooter in his 60's I can remember.

He was an Obama supporter only because he liked the way he was wrecking the country. "down is forward" in his eyes.

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/no-lou ... supporter/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.politicalforum.com/blogs/rusty-houser/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; He liked to post on political forums.

[ShootDontTalk]

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

Just a question though. What about bartenders serving people who are legally drunk and go out and have a wreck and kill someone? I seem to remember a case like that a while back. I think the bar owner was also held responsible. Wouldn't that prove the bar owner and bartender have to enact those methods?

[jmra]

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

Just a question though. What about bartenders serving people who are legally drunk and go out and have a wreck and kill someone? I seem to remember a case like that a while back. I think the bar owner was also held responsible. Wouldn't that prove the bar owner and bartender have to enact those methods?

I think that is also apples and oranges. The courts have ruled that bar owners have unique responsibilities due to the nature of the product that they are serving and its affect on customers. Even then there are a lot of factors that have to exist that basically amount to gross negligence in order for the establishment to be held liable.

[mojo84]

There are specicic laws regarding the serving of alcohol. Check out the TABC website.


https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/stand ... _chart.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

Is there a legal reason to enforce no smoking? In many instances yes. Not in all cases.

What I am getting to is that no smoking ordinances are in place for the public health.

The gun free zones are in place for public safety, so they say.

They rigorously enforce no smoking.

They do not rigorously enforce the no guns. They openly and brazenly ignore the stupidity of their public safety no gun stance. These lunatics invade these open killing fields and slaughter the masses. No one connects the dots. More attention and authority is given to enforcing no smoking than the no guns. These idiots expect people will respect their no gun killing zones. These zones have the effect of law but they are unenforceable. They are unenforceable but NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MURDERS. Those that perpetuate this lunacy should be prosecuted.

[jmra]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

Is there a legal reason to enforce no smoking? In many instances yes. Not in all cases.

What I am getting to is that no smoking ordinances are in place for the public health.

The gun free zones are in place for public safety, so they say.

They rigorously enforce no smoking.

They do not rigorously enforce the no guns. They openly and brazenly ignore the stupidity of their public safety no gun stance. These lunatics invade these open killing fields and slaughter the masses. No one connects the dots. More attention and authority is given to enforcing no smoking than the no guns. These idiots expect people will respect their no gun killing zones. These zones have the effect of law but they are unenforceable. They are unenforceable but NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MURDERS. Those that perpetuate this lunacy should be prosecuted.

I agree with you morally and perhaps with what should be, but as the law currently stands the business owner has no obligation to take any measures to ensure someone doesn't break the law by bringing a gun into a gun free zone the business owner created.
I would not at all oppose a bill that required business owners who created gun free zones be held responsible for the safety of those in their place of business. I don't think that will ever happen though.

[Right2Carry]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

Is there a legal reason to enforce no smoking? In many instances yes. Not in all cases.

What I am getting to is that no smoking ordinances are in place for the public health.

The gun free zones are in place for public safety, so they say.

They rigorously enforce no smoking.

They do not rigorously enforce the no guns. They openly and brazenly ignore the stupidity of their public safety no gun stance. These lunatics invade these open killing fields and slaughter the masses. No one connects the dots. More attention and authority is given to enforcing no smoking than the no guns. These idiots expect people will respect their no gun killing zones. These zones have the effect of law but they are unenforceable. They are unenforceable but NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MURDERS. Those that perpetuate this lunacy should be prosecuted.

Apples and Oranges. Businesses can be fined for not enforcing no smoking ordinances, no requirement exists for no gun zones. Choose where you take your family carefully as ultimately it is you who decides the risk not the business.

[jmra]

I don't think the issue is licensee's being forced to do anything except not enter armed. Obviously we are not forced to enter. No one else was forced to enter.

My concern is all those who are not licensee's who believe they are safe in the business, and particularly those who were drawn to their doom. They entered not knowing the risk. We know we're not safe, they don't. They believe the lie that someone bent on massacre will heed a sign telling them they shouldn't.

Taking a perhaps silly example, if watching the movie made you go blind, then the business owner would be required to warn those he took money from to enter.

For those who entered in ignorance to the danger, I think the business should either be required to make the risks known to everyone who does enter (like cigarettes) or guarantee the safety of the patrons with metal detectors and armed security.

Seems like property rights allow having a cake and eating it too. I'm probably missing something, but I'm sure some kind soul will correct me.

I guess I didn’t quite explain my point well enough but you helped me somewhat.

If I can’t legally enter a place with my gun because of a sign, then I want to know someone else bent on violence can’t just walk by the sign with a gun.

Again I will say, they have the right to forbid guns on their property, they have the responsibility to enforce that policy.

Perhaps the moral responsibility but not the legal responsibility.

First sentence in my first post.

Looks like some good lawsuits because they didn’t enforce their own written policy. They should have metal detectors and security at the doors.

There is no legal requirement to "enforce" a no guns policy therefore no legal liability. The business owner is simply doing what the law tells him to do if he wants to make the possession of firearms illegal. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of law enforcement, not the business owner. To my knowledge there has never been a successful lawsuit against a business for not enacting methods to ensure that their customers do not violate law.
The only way I see the business being legally liable is if somehow it was proven that there was prior knowledge that the gunmam was armed and the Theater failed to notify the authorities.

I'd bet a ton that if someone lit a smoke in the theater and nothing was done about it they would get sued and lose big time.

I don't understand the correlation nor do I agree that such a lawsuit would be successful. If you are trying to say that if the theater management were aware a crime was being committed they should notify the authorities then I agree.

Is there a legal reason to enforce no smoking? In many instances yes. Not in all cases.

What I am getting to is that no smoking ordinances are in place for the public health.

The gun free zones are in place for public safety, so they say.

They rigorously enforce no smoking.

They do not rigorously enforce the no guns. They openly and brazenly ignore the stupidity of their public safety no gun stance. These lunatics invade these open killing fields and slaughter the masses. No one connects the dots. More attention and authority is given to enforcing no smoking than the no guns. These idiots expect people will respect their no gun killing zones. These zones have the effect of law but they are unenforceable. They are unenforceable but NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MURDERS. Those that perpetuate this lunacy should be prosecuted.

Apples and Oranges. Businesses can be fined for not enforcing no smoking ordinances, no requirement exists for no gun zones. Choose where you take your family carefully as ultimately it is you who decides the risk not the business.