If any of the damaged parties were gun carriers that had disarmed in order to attend, they might have a case worth hearing.
If any of the damaged parties were gun carriers that had disarmed in order to attend, they might have a case worth hearing.
I choose my words carefully. I said it would be a case worth hearing. I didn't say who should win.
Gotcha ... [but who do you think should win?]
Can't really say until I see all the particulars. But I think your point is valid. I'm a proponent of private property rules. Don't like their rules, don't go there.
It depends on how the theatre promoted itself as a safe environment, and if their "security" safeguards were too easily bypassed.
I think the lawsuit is better directed toward the city/county that has the law that made the policy legally binding.
What city/county policy would be in play here?
Good question, I had been led to believe that that county was an exception and that the signs had weight of law. But now I can find no support for that belief in several minutes of searching. The usually very accurate www.handgunlaw.us makes no mention of it.
Aurora would not be the first city to claim a exemption that does not exist in state statutes.To my knowledge, there is no exception to preemption for Aurora county or city. If there is, I need to know about it soon, as I visit out there at least once a month for the mother-in-law. But so far, I've found nothing of the sort.
Ummm---who was it exactly that forcibly took their guns away from them and pushed them into the theater against their will?