7/20/2012

No guns policy at Cinemark Theaters?

The movie theatre was not a statutory gun-free zone. The exception for secure “public” buildings applies to buildings owned or managed by a public entity, not to all buildings accessible by the general public. Private business owners who invite the public onto their own premises can set their own policies: “Nothing in this part 2 [establishing the scope and limits of a Colorado concealed carry permit] 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.” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-214(5).

The attack did occur at a Cinemark theater. Here are pictures taken by Ray Hickman from another Cinemark theater in Ft. Collins, CO. Cinemark Fort Collins, 4721 South Timberline Rd Fort Collins, CO 80525

Here is a picture of this theater from the Cinemark website.

J. Neil Shulman has this post:

My sister, who lives in Colorado and has a license to carry a concealed handgun, tells me every Cinemark movie theater she’s gone to has the same sign the Cinemark Century 16 Theater displayed to its customers: No Firearms Allowed. This sign informed James Holmes that the management was guaranteeing nobody would be shooting back. . . .
Here is a post at The Truth About Guns.

Labels: , , ,

8 Comments:

Blogger Joe Aguirre said...

Mr. Lott,

I'm relatively new to this issue and don't know if you field questions on this site, but here goes.

1. Is it not a good idea to ban assault rifles? What are they used for?

2. What restrictions, if any, should we place on obtaining firearms (waiting periods, testing, safety instructions)?

Thank you.

Joe

7/20/2012 10:07 PM  
Blogger xpo172 said...

Hi Joe,
No, it's not a good idea to ban assault rifles. This is a free country and our citizens have the right to keep arms. ANY arms. The same "ban things" logic could be applied to lots of things that may have no practical use to you (or me) speedboats, kites, small dogs, mohawks, tatoos, hot air balloons, etc.

Your second question implies the logic that this nut job killer in CO couldn't have waited 5 days, or gone through some instruction and then still killed 12 people. Using the gun safely was not his malfunction.

7/21/2012 12:42 PM  
Blogger lowly said...

It's a bad idea to ban "assault rifles". In my mind, it is also not possible to ban them. Impossible because the whole point of citizens being armed is to guard against an over-reaching government, and there being little point in having an effective armed citizenry armed with less than useful tools. You have to bear in mind that the framers of the constitution tried to prevent a centralized source of power developing in this nation and for this reason balanced the presidency against the courts, against the congress, and against the states, and finally the people. Along with the vote, it was thought that ready access to firearms gave power to the people and that they were thus able to present a countervailing force to the other power centers.

These rifles are difficult to define. Mostly they are reliable, lightweight, and above all, underpowered. This is so that troops can carry more more ammo into combat. A civilian shooter will have no trouble carrying quite a bit of ammo of a normal, high powered rifle, as he has little other gear to tote as well. These rifles are used for anything from hunting, small varmints, to target shooting, to self defense, to various shooting sports, and plinking.

If you're talking restrictions on obtaining firearms then we should look to what these multiple homicides have in common, that being that the miscreant is deranged. Mentally impaired, anti social folks should not have access to any instruments with which they could do harm to others.

7/21/2012 3:20 PM  
Blogger DrDulcamara said...

Hey Joe,

Let me weigh in on this. I am an employee at a gun store. I am also a Certified Law Enforcement Armorer with qualifications in 15 different weapon related to military and law enforcement.

First define "assault rifle".

You are looking at the *cosmetics* of how a gun *looks* vs how a gun *operates*.

While a semi-auto rifle may *look* like an "assault rifle", it is not classified as such as it does not possess the selective fire mode to allow the weapon to go fully-automatic and unless you possess the necessary ATF classification, allowing for state laws, one cannot readily possess a full-auto assault rifle.

With the cosmetic issue out of the way...what are semi-auto rifles used for?

Hunting, plinking and in some cases so active duty and reserve duty military can still shoot weapons pertinent to their jobs descriptions as routine familiarity with their tools is a must when your life is on the line.

Most guys I know who are active duty military who purchase from me cannot get a fully dressed M-4 carbine in 5.56 but they can purchase a semi-auto version M-16 variant in .22LR that *looks* like the guy they use downrange.

Do we ban something of how that thing *looks* or how it *functions*.

If the answer is "yes" then shouldn't we first ban the *comic books* that got James "I am the Joker" Holmes falling off the ladder in the first place?

A gun is not dangerous. *People* [especially mentally deranged ones] are dangerous. It the *intent* of the user and not the type of weapon itself that presents a problem.

Steve

7/22/2012 11:17 AM  
Blogger e_tietze said...

Mr. Aguirre,

I'm not Mr. Lott and I do not in any way claim to speak for him. I will answer your first question about banning assault rifles. You are correct that banning assault rifles is a good idea, which is why they have been banned since The National Firearms Act was put into place in 1934 without proper licensing, taxes, etc... through the Dept. of Treasury. The common misconception is that an AR-15 is an assault rifle, it isn't. An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle (machine gun). This misconception comes generally due to the term 'Assault Weapon' which was made famous through the Assault Weapons Ban. There are no specific types of guns classified as 'Assault Weapons', it's a basically madeup term. The term 'Assault Weapon' was, and is, applied to firearms that have certain visual characteristics. They function no different than a typical semi-automatic hunting or target rifle, they only look different. Mechanically they are the same as any number of rifles used daily by sportsman throughout our country, they just look scary.

7/23/2012 12:41 AM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

A couple of things here. Firstly, has the sign been properly tested to assure it will stop bullets?

Definition of 'Assault Rifle': A shoulder fired weapon that utilizes an 'intermediate powered cartridge' with a detachable box magazine and is capable of select fire. Safe, Semi-auto, and Full automatic fire.

An intermediate powered cartrige is one that is of lower power than a true hi-power rifle cartridge, yet is more powerfull than a pistol cartridge.

In this case, the Stoner designed AR-15, M-16 weapons do not qualify as assault rifles. They are both carbines. A carbine being defined as an long arm that uses pistol cartridges or rounds whose ballistics are similar to pistol rounds. The upper end of carbine rounds would be the Winchester 30-30 cartridge.

Please look up 'Sturmgewehr' for more details concerning definition, and history of assault rifles.

7/23/2012 1:58 PM  
Blogger Sarah David said...

Guns should be banned in public places in order to reduce the risk of crimes.

11/19/2012 1:51 AM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Sarah; It is when guns are banned, and folks are unable to defend themselves from criminals and or unstable individuals that we end up with high crime rates.

11/21/2012 12:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home