Did Colorado shooter Cinemark because it banned guns?

[Superman]

I didn't find this already posted so here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... k-theater/

I think he makes good points, but I could attribute that the shooter did not pick the closest theater to his apartment because he wanted all the police at his place (when his booby-traps went off) and it would take them longer to travel to the theater that he was at.

I like this quote too:

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

Hit the nail on the head. I don't think it was his only reason, but I bet it was a very high priority reason.

[RoyGBiv]

I've made the point in the earlier thread on this topic. Any CO CHL that thought it was illegal to carry in that theater does not possess a sufficient understanding of his home state's CHL laws.

If I was in that theater, I would have been carrying, and doing so legally.

IANAL, This is my opinion, not legal advice.

That said.... Did the sign give the shooter some comfort..?? Certainly possible.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... is#p696882" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have not been able to find anything in Colorado law that would allow any local law to override State laws on concealed carry. Colorado law DOES allow local law to ban OPEN carry.

Colorado CC Laws (note: if you try to search the Lexis/Nexis database you need to use IE. FF doesn't work)
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CD ... 1622199820" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Specifically:

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.

[note: "Part 2" refers to the CO CC Permit law which is CO 18 Article 12 Part 2

and...

29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration
......
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.

and ....

29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

And finally.....

18-4-201. Definitions

(3) A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her intent, enters or remains in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person. <snipped>

The one exception that I'm aware of is Denver's ban on the sale of certain types of weapons. This was upheld by the State Supreme Court in 2006.
http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?So ... 200606051s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I was in that theater I would have been carrying. I still assume, based on my reading of Colorado law, that CC in that theater would have been perfectly legal for me to do, unless and until I am asked to leave by management.

Again.... I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

[C-dub]

It will be interesting if the shooter cites this as a reason for choosing that particular theater.

[RPB]

Well he didn't pick the Colorado University now did he?
Someone on Campus in class might shoot back if he tried to pull a school shooting.
That could have ended his plans early.

[tomtexan]

I am certainly surprised of this news article by Fox news. It seems that they are leaning our direction in a way somewhat.

[RPB]

I am certainly surprised of this news article by Fox news. It seems that they are leaning our direction in a way somewhat.

Author of article = John Lott
He contributes a lot there at FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/j ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?
By John Lott
Published September 10, 2012


More Guns Less Crime http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://twitter.com/johnrlottjr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Bias Against Guns
Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong
http://www.johnlott.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ClarkLZeuss]

RoyGBiv - it's not that Aurora illegally forbid concealed carry in that theater. Rather, Cinemark posted signs prohibiting it. And in Colorado, all a business needs is a gunbuster sign. They don't have 30.06 equivalent.

[C-dub]

RoyGBiv - it's not that Aurora illegally forbid concealed carry in that theater. Rather, Cinemark posted signs prohibiting it. And in Colorado, all a business needs is a gunbuster sign. They don't have 30.06 equivalent.

Already debunked back on page six of the Aurora thread. It's the text I changed to red.

Knowing Aurora, it is quite possible there were CHL holders in the crowd, but they couldn't carry in the theater. Aurora and Denver aren't exactly gun friendly, when we lived in Colorado Springs a few years back, Denver had managed to ban CHL's as a city, and everything in Aurora was posted.

Just to clarify, are you saying that I cannot carry within the Denver city limits? Not at all?

Perhaps Colorado does not have state preemption. Las Vegas is like that. In Vegas, they kill you if you have a CHL. And then they make excuses and blame it on the victim. Vegas keeps reelecting Harry Reid. 2+2= etc. Apparently then, parts of Colorado also teach "the new math."

You can concealed carry in Denver, but they do ban open carry.

As for 'No Guns' signs being enforcable to prevent concealed carry, this is from http://handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“No Firearm” signs in Colorado have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

[Heartland Patriot]

As has been pointed out on this forum before (including to me, IIRC) most people aren't like us members, not even all those who hold CHLs. WE research the law, we come on here and discuss (argue) about it, and we craft scenarios to help us understand the laws better (hopefully). MOST people DON'T...they listen in the class about as much as people listen in any class, or maybe just a bit more...and how much is retained? I firmly believe, if most people see a "gunbuster" sign they aren't going to carry past it, permit or not. There is a difference between a de jure ban and a de facto ban.

[RPB]

As has been pointed out on this forum before (including to me, IIRC) most people aren't like us members, not even all those who hold CHLs. WE research the law, we come on here and discuss (argue) about it, and we craft scenarios to help us understand the laws better (hopefully). MOST people DON'T...they listen in the class about as much as people listen in any class, or maybe just a bit more...and how much is retained? I firmly believe, if most people see a "gunbuster" sign they aren't going to carry past it, permit or not. There is a difference between a de jure ban and a de facto ban.

True, many Texans see a gunbuster sign ... or they see a "church" or "bank" sign and assume those are "gun free zones"
Non-gun people like the criminal ones in the news who "just recently purchased" guns do that/also make that assumption. They don't delve into heavy research about where it is legal and not legal, but if they see a gunbuster type sign, then they assume & feel safer while they fulfill their plans.
So, a gunbuster/no guns type sign though not legally prohibiting, makes non-gun people&criminals who lack knowledge feel safer. Therefore, a criminal who desires "maximum target time" would probably choose such a location. So placing an advertisement for criminals to feel safer while committing criminal acts there should open the establishment up to liability

[OldCannon]

Not to mention that, statistically speaking, the demographics of that premiere midnight showing doesn't really align with the demographics of a "typical" concealed carry citizen. Gunbusters or not, the odds were low there would be a citizen that would be armed and shoot back.

[RoyGBiv]

RoyGBiv - it's not that Aurora illegally forbid concealed carry in that theater. Rather, Cinemark posted signs prohibiting it. And in Colorado, all a business needs is a gunbuster sign. They don't have 30.06 equivalent.

Hopefully you now understand why this is not correct Clark.?

My post above contains the actual language and references from Colorado statute. No Guns signs do not have force of law in Colorado. Guns can only be excluded from public places if the manager (or someone with the managers authority) personally asks you and your gun to leave the premises.

C-Dub adds the plain-English reference from handgunlaw.us that corroborates my interpretation of CO law.

I am not a lawyer, This is not legal advice, just my personal opinion.

ETA: The language of concern in CO statute is 18-12-214..

18-12-214 Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

If you believe that posting sign is a "personal communication" from the owner to the license holder, then you should not carry in posted locations. I do not believe this is the case. However, I am not a lawyer and I find no test cases to prove my opinion. So, caveat emptor.

[JJVP]

RoyGBiv - it's not that Aurora illegally forbid concealed carry in that theater. Rather, Cinemark posted signs prohibiting it. And in Colorado, all a business needs is a gunbuster sign. They don't have 30.06 equivalent.

Hopefully you now understand why this is not correct Clark.?

My post above contains the actual language and references from Colorado statute. No Guns signs do not have force of law in Colorado. Guns can only be excluded from public places if the manager (or someone with the managers authority) personally asks you and your gun to leave the premises.

C-Dub adds the plain-English reference from handgunlaw.us that corroborates my interpretation of CO law.

I am not a lawyer, This is not legal advice, just my personal opinion.

ETA: The language of concern in CO statute is 18-12-214..

18-12-214 Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

If you believe that posting sign is a "personal communication" from the owner to the license holder, then you should not carry in posted locations. I do not believe this is the case. However, I am not a lawyer and I find no test cases to prove my opinion. So, caveat emptor.

A lot of people might not carry where a No Gun Sign is posted even if it has no force of law. I can see a father taking his son or daughter to that theater deciding not to carry in case he is discovered and asked to leave by management. It would be very embarrassing for him and a big disappointment to his kid(s).

A couple of years ago, my wife had some minor surgery at a clinic in Pasadena. I was carrying. When we entered the building there was a notice prohibiting CHL's from carrying based on some Pasadena ordinance. I ignored the sign and went in anyway, since it was not a 30.06 sign. Since I was going to have to wait for several hours while my wife was in surgery, I decided to go back to the car and disarm. I was afraid that if I was discovered, I would be asked to leave, leaving my wife stranded or without my company on the recovery room.

That was my choice at the time although I am not sure I would make the same choice again.