will they change there mind now .... Emagine Entertainment

rvd4now · Jul 23, 2012

rvd4now, as a fellow CPL holder, I am all about our right to own and carry firearms so truly I understand your concerns and passion concerning this topic. However, Emagine Canton is a Pistol Free Area as defined by the State of Michigan (see below) and that is not up for debate. Emagine Canton has over 3800 seats and is clearly a place where guns are not allowed. In addition, there are no laws that specifically state that we have to post a sign of this fact (some burden is on the gun owner to know this information before entering). Please refer to several excepts I found from the Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) web site below (key points highlighted in red). One of the questions answered on MCRGO’s web site even specifically addresses an 18 screen theater and the answer confirms what we already know – guns are not allowed. Lastly, although there are no laws prohibiting “open carry” on the books, most people in our society (even if they are fundamentally wrong in their beliefs) get extremely uneasy at the sight of a gun (even when holstered). So even if we weren’t a Pistol Free Zone, we’d still prohibit them as we are in the business of entertaining folks, not making them scared or nervous.

We have informed you (politely) that we do not want you to bring your gun into our complex and any future attempts by you to do so will unfortunately result in a call to local law enforcement to have a “No Trespass” notice issued to you (and I’d truly hate to see that happen). We do appreciate your business but you’ll have to visit us without your gun. Thank you.

Chris Brandt

Sr. V.P. of Operations

Emagine Entertainment/Cinema Hollywood

44425 West 12 Mile Rd.

Novi, MI 48377

Ph 248.468.2990, Ext 104

Fax 248.468.2995

rvd4now · Jul 23, 2012

i just emailed

i just emailed him this update

DEAR CHRIS BRANDT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO UPDATE YOU AND YOUR TEAM ON A STORY I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...gan-holmes-appears-in-colorado-courtroom?lite

THEY WARE A SO CALLED PISTOL FREE ZONE AS WELL, CRIMINALS DONT CARE IF YOUR A PISTOL FREE ZONE.

WHY PUT YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS AT RISK. WITHIN ONE AND A HALF MINS TWELVE PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND MANY MORE WERE HURT

PLEASE DONT SUPPORT PISTOL FREE ZONES.

rvd4now

stainless1911 · Jul 23, 2012

Thank you.

rvd4now said:
rvd4now, as a fellow CPL holder, I am all about our right to own and carry firearms so truly I understand your concerns and passion concerning this topic. However, Emagine Canton is a Pistol Free Area as defined by the State of Michigan (see below) and that is not up for debate. Emagine Canton has over 3800 seats and is clearly a place where guns are not allowed. In addition, there are no laws that specifically state that we have to post a sign of this fact (some burden is on the gun owner to know this information before entering). Please refer to several excepts I found from the Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) web site below (key points highlighted in red). One of the questions answered on MCRGO’s web site even specifically addresses an 18 screen theater and the answer confirms what we already know – guns are not allowed. Lastly, although there are no laws prohibiting “open carry” on the books, most people in our society (even if they are fundamentally wrong in their beliefs) get extremely uneasy at the sight of a gun (even when holstered). So even if we weren’t a Pistol Free Zone, we’d still prohibit them as we are in the business of entertaining folks, not making them scared or nervous.

We have informed you (politely) that we do not want you to bring your gun into our complex and any future attempts by you to do so will unfortunately result in a call to local law enforcement to have a “No Trespass” notice issued to you (and I’d truly hate to see that happen). We do appreciate your business but you’ll have to visit us without your gun. Thank you.

Chris Brandt

Sr. V.P. of Operations

Emagine Entertainment/Cinema Hollywood

44425 West 12 Mile Rd.

Novi, MI 48377

Ph 248.468.2990, Ext 104

Fax 248.468.2995

When did this correspondence occur? Was it recent?

rvd4now · Jul 23, 2012

stainless1911 said:
When did this correspondence occur? Was it recent?

last year some time.. I just thought of him for some strange reason last firday morning

Idk why

stainless1911 · Jul 23, 2012

lol.

Im just waiting for there to be a shooting at one of the Waterford Schools, I'll be sure to give Mr. Beaver a call, or maybe I'll just drop in and say hello.

stainless1911 · Jul 23, 2012

Pats on the back to you sir.

Orion · Jul 23, 2012

rvd4now said:
i just emailed him this update

DEAR CHRIS BRANDT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO UPDATE YOU AND YOUR TEAM ON A STORY I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...gan-holmes-appears-in-colorado-courtroom?lite

THEY WARE A SO CALLED PISTOL FREE ZONE AS WELL, CRIMINALS DONT CARE IF YOUR A PISTOL FREE ZONE.

WHY PUT YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS AT RISK. WITHIN ONE AND A HALF MINS TWELVE PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND MANY MORE WERE HURT

PLEASE DONT SUPPORT PISTOL FREE ZONES.

rvd4now

rvd4now, I am sorry but you are mistaken. In Colorado theatres are not gun free zones. If you check their laws you would find there is no restriction on carry in a theatre there by law. Of course, management can always restrict our right to carry, but that is a business decision, not a force of law.

rvd4now · Jul 23, 2012

Orion said:
rvd4now, I am sorry but you are mistaken. In Colorado theatres are not gun free zones. If you check their laws you would find there is no restriction on carry in a theatre there by law. Of course, management can always restrict our right to carry, but that is a business decision, not a force of law.

o thats even better, we are a pfz here in mi . How can we every think we are going to be safe in a ptz.

stainless1911 · Jul 23, 2012

Orion said:
rvd4now, I am sorry but you are mistaken. In Colorado theatres are not gun free zones. If you check their laws you would find there is no restriction on carry in a theatre there by law. Of course, management can always restrict our right to carry, but that is a business decision, not a force of law.

True, but since they did decide to put themselves in this position, (and got the expected result), they would enforce that self inflicted free fire zone under force of law.

The result is the same, prosecution for the gun owner, death to the patrons and employees.

DrTodd · Jul 24, 2012

rvd4now said:
o thats even better, we are a pfz here in mi . How can we every think we are going to be safe in a ptz.

By OCing...

Hyperion · Jul 24, 2012

The Cinemark Theatre in Aurora, Colorado is, and was, a self-defense-free-zone: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ary-image-of-the-day-cinemark-gun-ban-notice/

I support State legislation that would provide that private property owners that have businesses open to the public (business invitees) and restrict the abiility of those invitees to protect themselves, shall have the duty to protect those invitees and be subject to strict liability for injuries arising out of criminal acts by third-parties if those criminal acts could have been avoided or defended against through the use of denied self-defense tools.

hud · Jul 24, 2012

I completely agree with HYPERION. Though it's too early and, no doubt, too painful for the victims and their families to contemplate at this time, I do hope that they eventually give thought to filing suit against the theater for requiring them to be unable to defend themselves while they also then took no responsibility to defend them as their customers.

WilDChilD · Jul 24, 2012

I dont think they can sue, they went there on their own free will. The theater didnt make them come to the movie. They went there knowing they had no right to self defence.

Glock9mmOldStyle · Jul 24, 2012

Hyperion said:
The Cinemark Theatre in Aurora, Colorado is, and was, a self-defense-free-zone: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ary-image-of-the-day-cinemark-gun-ban-notice/

I support State legislation that would provide that private property owners that have businesses open to the public (business invitees) and restrict the abiility of those invitees to protect themselves, shall have the duty to protect those invitees and be subject to strict liability for injuries arising out of criminal acts by third-parties if those criminal acts could have been avoided or defended against through the use of denied self-defense tools.

+ 1,000,000,000,000

Let's work together with our law makers to see this happens.:thumbup:

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

aa1911 · Jul 24, 2012

Homes obviously just didn't see the 'firearms prohibited' sign, they should make it bigger... hard to fathom these freakin anti-gun idiots out there. He obviously didn't want a gunfight because he sat and waited for police to get him. If even one person had returned fire, he would have likely retreated even if he wasn't hit or killed, saving lives. That's just my guess though...

I do agree that if a business open to the public forbids firearms then they should be held responsible for safety and any death/injuries; that would sure make a lot of places 'gun friendly zones' all of a sudden!

DanM · Jul 24, 2012

Hyperion said:
I support State legislation that would provide that private property owners that have businesses open to the public (business invitees) and restrict the abiility of those invitees to protect themselves, shall have the duty to protect those invitees and be subject to strict liability for injuries arising out of criminal acts by third-parties if those criminal acts could have been avoided or defended against through the use of denied self-defense tools.

Dean, currently don't patrons of businesses often sue, and win or at least settle for a good amount, when businesses create an expectation of safety or other implied or express duty upon themselves but don't follow through?

How much of a stretch is it to say that a business that established a "no gun" rule created some expectation or some duty that it completely failed at when it didn't screen visitors and a criminal shot up the place? Do you hear much about attorneys taking that approach, on behalf of victim clients, after such incidents?

Hyperion · Jul 25, 2012

Dan: Property owners are generally NOT responsible for the criminal acts of third parties if they are unforeseeable. If the property owner knew or reasonably knew that there was an increased likelihood of criminal activity and he fails to warn of the threat or take reasonable steps to assure safety, there could be liability.

I would argue that the creation of a "gun-free zone" is a passive invitation to assaultive crime and that the creation of the zone substantially and materially increases the risk of a mass-attack akin to the shooting in Aurora, CO. The property owner should have warned its business invitees of the increased risk and should have taken reasonable steps to counter the elevated danger caused by the creation of the dangerous zone.

The gun-free zone liability statute would create a rebuttable presumption that the GFZ created an increased risk, thereby opening the door to personal injury liability for the property owner.

davidmcbeth · Jul 25, 2012

I did consider this legal liability .. but then it would be a double edge sword: if anyone allowed carrying, then would they be liable for any injuries because of this allowance?

Then 99% of places would not allow carry at all as insurance companies would see it not in any right aspect but purely in $$. And since there really is no facts to support it either way(or one could argue either side of the argument), then they'll likely come down on not giving out insurance if you allow carry into the bldg.

DrTodd · Jul 25, 2012

Hyperion said:
Dan: Property owners are generally NOT responsible for the criminal acts of third parties if they are unforeseeable. If the property owner knew or reasonably knew that there was an increased likelihood of criminal activity and he fails to warn of the threat or take reasonable steps to assure safety, there could be liability.

I would argue that the creation of a "gun-free zone" is a passive invitation to assaultive crime and that the creation of the zone substantially and materially increases the risk of a mass-attack akin to the shooting in Aurora, CO. The property owner should have warned its business invitees of the increased risk and should have taken reasonable steps to counter the elevated danger caused by the creation of the dangerous zone.

The gun-free zone liability statute would create a rebuttable presumption that the GFZ created an increased risk, thereby opening the door to personal injury liability for the property owner.

Amen!!

stainless1911 · Jul 25, 2012

I heard on the radio today, that there was a shooting in Aurora CO a couple months ago in a church, difference is, that a CPL holder stopped the person after only one victim.

Wonder why I only heard this on a conservative radio talk show?

will they change there mind now .... Emagine Entertainment

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Attachments

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Banned