Licensed to carry: Movie theaters among Florida places where guns are allowed

William DeShazer/Staff
Collier County Sheriff work the scene at the Hollywood Stadium 20 on Saturday July 21, 2012.

Photo by WILLIAM DESHAZER, Naples Daily News // Buy this photo

William DeShazer/Staff Collier County Sheriff work the scene at the Hollywood Stadium 20 on Saturday July 21, 2012.

Places where a concealed weapon isn’t allowed, under Florida statute 790.06:

1. Any place of nuisance as defined in Florida statute 823.05

2. A law enforcement station

3. A detention facility, prison or jail

4. A courthouse

5. A courtroom, except for the judge or anyone authorized by the judge

6. Polling places

7. Meeting rooms of a government body

8. Any meeting of the Legislature or any of its committees

9. A school, college or professional athletic event not related to firearms

10. An elementary or secondary school facility or administration building

11. A career center

12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises

13. Any college or university facility, unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of the college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon doesn’t fire a dart or projectile

14. The passenger terminal of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal if the firearm is encased for shipment or checked as baggage

15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law

— There aren't many places in Southwest Florida where guns are banned.

People with concealed weapons permits can't take their guns into schools and courthouses. Government meeting rooms, polling places and airport terminals are among other places that are off-limits.

In Florida, where state records show there are about 1 million residents licensed to have a concealed weapon, there's no ban on taking guns into movie theaters. But states' laws vary: it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon into a theater in Colorado.

In a Colorado movie theater, a gunman killed 12 people and wounded 59 others 10 days ago during a midnight showing of a Batman movie.

The next day, a gun found inside a Naples-area movie theater was returned to its owner when he came back to claim it, a Collier County sheriff's report shows.

Since the Colorado shooting, there's been no move to change Florida law regarding where weapons are allowed, said Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. He said he's not aware of any recent bills filed for the state Legislature to consider regarding concealed weapons.

"If it's not listed in the statute by law, it can be carried into the location," Lee County sheriff's spokeswoman Sgt. Stephanie Eller said.

That was the case the afternoon of Saturday, July 21, when an employee cleaning a Hollywood 20 movie theater after a noon showing of the "The Intouchables" found a small, black leather bag containing a handgun left behind by a moviegoer, according to a sheriff's report.

The man retrieved his bag and gun a short time later, according to the report. Employees at the Naples theater then notified the Sheriff's Office after the man left with his gun.

Most area movie theaters wouldn't discuss any changes made in security measures in the week following the Colorado shooting, but one theater chain did.

"Moviegoers should expect stricter controls over character attire and accessories at our theatres," Russ Nunley, Regal Entertainment Group spokesman, said in an email. "The vast majority of guests have expressed appreciation when they notice a staff member or security personnel facilitating our safety protocols."

A manager at Hollywood 20 on the Saturday the gun was found wouldn't comment. Calls made subsequently to the media hotline for Hollywood 20 weren't returned, nor was the general manager of the Silverspot Cinema in North Naples available for comment.

In Lee, Eller wouldn't say if there have been extra deputy patrols at local movie theaters because the agency doesn't disclose its tactical operations.

Collier sheriff's patrol Capt. Tim Guerrette said the department has a standing relationship with local theaters and has provided off-duty detail for student programs.

"We have been in contact with the management at the theaters in the area (recently) to work with them to determine their needs, if any. These needs may involve hiring additional off-duty deputies or providing special patrols, which is a standard service that we offer," Guerrette said in a statement.

Approval for a concealed weapon permit in Florida requires fingerprints and background checks, plus firearms training classes.

In Florida, about 1 million residents are authorized to have a concealed weapon, state records show.

In June, 12,568 Collier County residents held a concealed weapon license; in Lee County, 31,357 residents had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

"We will continue to partner with the movie theater managers to ensure that everyone in Collier County can have a safe and enjoyable movie-going experience."

Neither Collier County, nor Lee County, public schools plan to change their security measures regarding weapons.

Collier schools Chief Operations Officer Michele LaBute said in an email that school district staff, along with daily assistance of the Collier sheriff's Youth Relations deputies, and students are always vigilant and on the lookout for any potential threats.

When and if there is reasonable cause to warrant a search, school administrators and-or law enforcement officers conduct a car search or backpack search, as allowed by law, LaBute said. She said searches for firearms are "extremely rare."

Michele LaBute, the chief operations officer for the Collier County school system. Lexey Swall/Staff

Photo by LEXEY SWALL // Buy this photo

Michele LaBute, the chief operations officer for the Collier County school system. Lexey Swall/Staff

"We do not expect a need to change our procedures at this time, but we do re-evaluate them on a continuous basis," LaBute said. "We will continue to be vigilant for any potential threats to the safety of our students, staff and campus visitors during the new school year, and will address any threats appropriately, when and if they occur."

Lee schools spokesman Joe Donzelli said he couldn't talk about safety procedures.

"That incident does not reveal any flaws in any safety procedures that we have in schools," said Donzelli, adding that entering school grounds and a theater are completely different situations.

Currently, the Lee County School District has resource officers provided by the Lee County Sheriff's Office. Just recently, the program also got a new K-9 unit.

Donzelli said the district doesn't keep statistics of how often a backpack, car or locker are searched for firearms.

In Lee County, three arrests were made for possession of a firearm on school properties during the school year from August 2011 to May, according to Lee County Sheriff's Office records.

One place where people with a concealed weapon permit can carry a gun is into county and city parks. A court challenge led various government agencies in Southwest Florida to change their local laws a couple of years ago, now allowing concealed weapons in parks as was spelled out in state law.

In some cases, there are nuances to the law: for example, bars and restaurants.

"There are a couple of things that aren't cut and dried; however, when people get a concealed weapon permit they need to learn the rules ... and know that just because they can carry a gun they cannot carry it everywhere," Eller said.

A portion of the state law, statute 790.06, bans concealed weapons in about 15 places, including bars. But, Eller said, it needs further investigation when determining a possible crime if someone carried a concealed gun into a restaurant that has a bar or lounge area.

"It's not a black-and-white issue," Eller said. "We have to see what they are doing and see the totality of the situation."

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Related Links

Comments » 126

slickwillie writes:

jeanjaques is smoking too much ganja.....

titanbite writes:

Just another reason to avoid the movies,not only do most movies suck,now,movie goers will need to look out for gun-toting wannabe's loosing control and shooting up the joint when the movie's special effects get the better of their overactive imaginations.

freedomsailor writes:

Have decided not to go to a movie again. Dumb patrons take their gun(s) to the movies and then forget them when they leave. Yup, smart gun owners....

LoadStar (Inactive) writes:

Thank you NDN. This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for in my comments the other day re the Colorado shooting, and concealed carry.

"If it's not listed in the statute by law, it can be carried into the location," Lee County sheriff's spokeswoman Sgt. Stephanie Eller said."

Good to know. While that statement seems like no big deal, it's the first time, anywhwere, I've ever heard it unambiguously spelled out. Well, sort of unambiguously that is. I still have the nagging question regarding what is permitted when the owner posts a "No Guns" sign - is it still legal to carry then? Seems to me that in the case of FL parks, the No Gun signs were ruled illegal and unenforcible - therefore via extrapolation, I would indeed be legal to carry even if the owner/manager posted signs to the contrary. I have no desire to tests this however, and would likely comply with the owner's request.

Lastly, all the talk of concealed carry being the answer in the Colorado case - MUTE - guns are not permitted in CO theaters! I agree, perhaps they should reconsider that law, but in the meantime, no one could legally carry inside that theater.

SaveaRat writes:

And, what if it had been a curious 4 year old dropping down to grab his candy box and found the gun? And thought it was a toy and while looking at the gun shot himself in the face by accident? Or a crazy teen found it and simulated what Holmes did?

In my opinion the sheriffs should take away the concealed weapons permit from this guy, because he obviously wasn't "carrying" it. I could have been a disastrous ending. Thank goodness the attendant had some training handling weapons.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to JeanJacques:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

From reading your drivel I suspect that YOU are probably trying to beat down your desire to 'violate commandent'.

And your pidgeon English isn't fooling anyone.

Jean Jack I suspect is 180 degrees from what he professes to be.

First off if you ARE from Haiti you don't have a gun legally. Second, your posts are very tiresome. Change the theme a little, we laffed at you at first now we need you to change the material.

I know let's talk about Haiti being the HIV capitol of the world. When did you get HIV? And how? IV drug use or 'violate commandent'?

TSOL writes:

in response to RobinofLocksley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Perhaps if you feel that way then you should move to a country that doesn't allow private firearm ownership. China, Russia & Cuba come to mind.

romneygate writes:

in response to freedomsailor:

Have decided not to go to a movie again. Dumb patrons take their gun(s) to the movies and then forget them when they leave. Yup, smart gun owners....

Maybe a database could be set up so lost guns could be returned to their RIGHTful owners, right?

romneygate writes:

in response to LoadStar:

Thank you NDN. This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for in my comments the other day re the Colorado shooting, and concealed carry.

"If it's not listed in the statute by law, it can be carried into the location," Lee County sheriff's spokeswoman Sgt. Stephanie Eller said."

Good to know. While that statement seems like no big deal, it's the first time, anywhwere, I've ever heard it unambiguously spelled out. Well, sort of unambiguously that is. I still have the nagging question regarding what is permitted when the owner posts a "No Guns" sign - is it still legal to carry then? Seems to me that in the case of FL parks, the No Gun signs were ruled illegal and unenforcible - therefore via extrapolation, I would indeed be legal to carry even if the owner/manager posted signs to the contrary. I have no desire to tests this however, and would likely comply with the owner's request.

Lastly, all the talk of concealed carry being the answer in the Colorado case - MUTE - guns are not permitted in CO theaters! I agree, perhaps they should reconsider that law, but in the meantime, no one could legally carry inside that theater.

Shish, the next thing you know, we will be seeing NO GUNS signs like NO SMOKING signs. What's this country coming to? Everyone should be able to wear their racoon hats. There are still "baers" in Florida, right?

Captian_Cataracts writes:

Here's something to consider...it is now known that the movie theater murderer was under mental health care.

I propose that a few changes be made to gun carry laws:

1) Remove the licensing from the State & give it to the Feds. This way there is a central point from which backgrounding & licensing occur.

2) A Fed issued license allow the gun owner to carry in all States. That ought to make the gun lobby happy.

3) When you apply for a permit to carry you must give the Feds the ability to review (ongoing not just at application time) your mental health records (just the diagnosis code) ANd if you are being treated for a mental illness revoke the license AND confiscate the weapons.

I'm tired of crazies running around with guns aren't you? I responsible gun owner is not going to balk at having their mental health condition monitored for the safety and well-being of others, I know I wouldn't mind.

It's time for gun owners to take these matters into their own hands and stop the political garbage, this isn't a liberal or conserative issue, it's an issue that involves US all.

You allow yourself to be digitally strip searched and gropped by the thugs at TSA when you travel. Keeping tabs on gun owners mental health condition is not that difficult to do these days.

swampbuggy writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

Here's something to consider...it is now known that the movie theater murderer was under mental health care.

I propose that a few changes be made to gun carry laws:

1) Remove the licensing from the State & give it to the Feds. This way there is a central point from which backgrounding & licensing occur.

2) A Fed issued license allow the gun owner to carry in all States. That ought to make the gun lobby happy.

3) When you apply for a permit to carry you must give the Feds the ability to review (ongoing not just at application time) your mental health records (just the diagnosis code) ANd if you are being treated for a mental illness revoke the license AND confiscate the weapons.

I'm tired of crazies running around with guns aren't you? I responsible gun owner is not going to balk at having their mental health condition monitored for the safety and well-being of others, I know I wouldn't mind.

It's time for gun owners to take these matters into their own hands and stop the political garbage, this isn't a liberal or conserative issue, it's an issue that involves US all.

You allow yourself to be digitally strip searched and gropped by the thugs at TSA when you travel. Keeping tabs on gun owners mental health condition is not that difficult to do these days.

Great idea. Eric Holder will manage that as well as he did Fast and Furious.

CooperLover writes:

Boycotting the US tourist wise would soon change these ridiculous gun laws.

LoadStar (Inactive) writes:

in response to romneygate:

Shish, the next thing you know, we will be seeing NO GUNS signs like NO SMOKING signs. What's this country coming to? Everyone should be able to wear their racoon hats. There are still "baers" in Florida, right?

You gotta admit though, it's a perplexing question. Does a private biz owner have the right to ban others from excercising THEIR right to conceal-carry? Is his business considered a public place? Or is it private?

Take the example of picketers. Employees are guaranteed the right to free speech and assembly, YET, the biz owner has the right to keep them off his property! In the case of striking picketers, the biz is consider not public, but private, and the owner's rights prevail. That's why you always see such assemblies on PUBLIC areas (street outside the biz and nearby rights-of-way).

So, reconcile this interpretation insofar as concealed carry vs. "No Guns" signs!!

I wish we could get some legal experts to weigh in on this.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to swampbuggy:

Great idea. Eric Holder will manage that as well as he did Fast and Furious.

I propose a solution & you immediately politicize it, nice going.

Then how about this, all firearms are confiscated & destroyed.

Would that make you happy? That is not outside the capability of government to do you know. I majority of Americans would vote in favor of such Laws.

Either solve the problem or a solution will be imposed on you.

Now, for the Eric Holder comment: not every military or police mission is successful. That one failed but at least they tried. What have you done to try lately?

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to LoadStar:

You gotta admit though, it's a perplexing question. Does a private biz owner have the right to ban others from excercising THEIR right to conceal-carry? Is his business considered a public place? Or is it private?

Take the example of picketers. Employees are guaranteed the right to free speech and assembly, YET, the biz owner has the right to keep them off his property! In the case of striking picketers, the biz is consider not public, but private, and the owner's rights prevail. That's why you always see such assemblies on PUBLIC areas (street outside the biz and nearby rights-of-way).

So, reconcile this interpretation insofar as concealed carry vs. "No Guns" signs!!

I wish we could get some legal experts to weigh in on this.

I offer this correction...you do NOT have a RIGHT to concealed carry at least according to my copy of the Bill of Rights; you have a RIGHT to gun ownership. Concealed carry is a priviledge just like a drivers license is a priviledge.

Just as Chik-Fila has the ability to not hire gays, casinos the ability to refuse service to compulsive gamblers & bars to refuse service to drunks business establishments can refuse service to persons that fail to abide by the rules they have set down for the safety of their customers.

Sure it'll make interesting case Law in review but right now, due to the actions of certain crazies with guns everyones priviledge to carry a concealed firearm in public is in jeopardy.

Gun owners need to lead the way on this isse (and not the gun crazies).

Bigkondorsback (Inactive) writes:

in response to RobinofLocksley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Obviously you have no idea why the Japanese did not invade the US mainland in WWII.

manforpeace writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

I offer this correction...you do NOT have a RIGHT to concealed carry at least according to my copy of the Bill of Rights; you have a RIGHT to gun ownership. Concealed carry is a priviledge just like a drivers license is a priviledge.

Just as Chik-Fila has the ability to not hire gays, casinos the ability to refuse service to compulsive gamblers & bars to refuse service to drunks business establishments can refuse service to persons that fail to abide by the rules they have set down for the safety of their customers.

Sure it'll make interesting case Law in review but right now, due to the actions of certain crazies with guns everyones priviledge to carry a concealed firearm in public is in jeopardy.

Gun owners need to lead the way on this isse (and not the gun crazies).

Boy, you are confused. I hope you don't have guns. 90% of the stuff you say is wacked out.
Are you under crazy care now?
I must say I have heard some crazy stuff, however giving gun control to the FEDS is the dumbest thing yet.

LoadStar (Inactive) writes:

Right vs. privilege - interesting argument. I would disagree with with your Chik-Fil-A example, however, as open refusal to hire gays is the opposite of a right or privilege - it's illegal. Regardless, I get your point.

Colorado (Inactive) writes:

in response to JeanJacques:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

You are the s----- one. May you shoot your own foot off.

swampbuggy writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

I propose a solution & you immediately politicize it, nice going.

Then how about this, all firearms are confiscated & destroyed.

Would that make you happy? That is not outside the capability of government to do you know. I majority of Americans would vote in favor of such Laws.

Either solve the problem or a solution will be imposed on you.

Now, for the Eric Holder comment: not every military or police mission is successful. That one failed but at least they tried. What have you done to try lately?

The federal government is not a solution to anything, it's the problem. Don't take my word for it, look at how well our students are doing since Carter started the Dept. of Education. Amtrak is a fine example of federal transportation and I am sure you would just love to live in some HUD housing.
If you think the majority of Americans would favor seizing all firearms, then let's put it on the ballot. Repeal the second ammendment. Do you really think you will be successful???

PeterDanielRichter writes:

I'm very disappointed that NRA has endorsed State Rep. Kathleen Passidomo (Naples). Did you know that she wants to ban "Assault Weapons"? Did you know that she has a Republican running against her with a grade of AQ, and a Libertarian in the general (me) that will also receive an AQ? (Should be an A+++Q)

Listen to this radio clip from earlier this week and judge for yourself. She doesn't quite say it - but COME ON!

http://www.electRichter.com/media/Bob...

SlappyPappy writes:

How in the sam hell would imposing stricter gun laws or limiting the places where people with a concealed carry permit solve anything? Last time I checked, criminals do not give a rat's behind about the rules. Limiting the places where people can carry their gun only makes it easier for people like this whack job in Colorado to do what he did. I wonder what would have been the outcome if their had been a concealed weapons holder in the theater. My guess is the death toll would have been much less.

BobbyLupo writes:

It's better to have and not need, than to need and not have. Just like the old American Express commercial, "Don't leave home without it."

just_makin_it writes:

in response to CooperLover:

Boycotting the US tourist wise would soon change these ridiculous gun laws.

NOTHING will take away our 2nd Amendment rights, Ever! Comprende?

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to swampbuggy:

The federal government is not a solution to anything, it's the problem. Don't take my word for it, look at how well our students are doing since Carter started the Dept. of Education. Amtrak is a fine example of federal transportation and I am sure you would just love to live in some HUD housing.
If you think the majority of Americans would favor seizing all firearms, then let's put it on the ballot. Repeal the second ammendment. Do you really think you will be successful???

No one is proposing to repeal the 2nd Amendment but consider this, you do have the Right to own a firearm. You do not have the Right to walk around with it hidden on your person.

That capability is a priviledge not a right.

Keep a gun in your home is guaranteed to you be the 2nd but carrying it not.

I propose that mental health records be automatically collected, not transcripts or dictation about your condition but just the physicans diagnosis code, and if a firearm owner is flagged as having specific mental 'problems' that their weapons be removed from their possession.

Looky here, if gun owners don't act now then the anti-gun groups will.

Either a rational gun policy needs to be offered by the gun owners or one will be imposed.

Examples of crazies with guns that come to mind are the Zimmerman case, the colorado Joker case & more recently the whack job that murdered a door-to-door salesman because the saleman was in his driveway.

ALL of those individuals had run ins with the police or were being treated for mental illnesses of varying degrees the most recent murder of the salesman by a CCW holder that was quite obviously out of his mind.

I don't want THOSE types running around my neighborhood armed with guns. Do you?

just_makin_it writes:

in response to pitbull:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Gimme a break, it was an AR-15, basically a dressed up .22 rifle. Get you're facts straight!

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to manforpeace:

Boy, you are confused. I hope you don't have guns. 90% of the stuff you say is wacked out.
Are you under crazy care now?
I must say I have heard some crazy stuff, however giving gun control to the FEDS is the dumbest thing yet.

Where did the Right to own a firearm come from? The State? No. The Feds. The discretion of permitting for concealed carry was left to the States.

So my proposal is w[h]acked out eh?

Which part? Enlighten me please.

just_makin_it writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

No one is proposing to repeal the 2nd Amendment but consider this, you do have the Right to own a firearm. You do not have the Right to walk around with it hidden on your person.

That capability is a priviledge not a right.

Keep a gun in your home is guaranteed to you be the 2nd but carrying it not.

I propose that mental health records be automatically collected, not transcripts or dictation about your condition but just the physicans diagnosis code, and if a firearm owner is flagged as having specific mental 'problems' that their weapons be removed from their possession.

Looky here, if gun owners don't act now then the anti-gun groups will.

Either a rational gun policy needs to be offered by the gun owners or one will be imposed.

Examples of crazies with guns that come to mind are the Zimmerman case, the colorado Joker case & more recently the whack job that murdered a door-to-door salesman because the saleman was in his driveway.

ALL of those individuals had run ins with the police or were being treated for mental illnesses of varying degrees the most recent murder of the salesman by a CCW holder that was quite obviously out of his mind.

I don't want THOSE types running around my neighborhood armed with guns. Do you?

Actually, if you have a concealed carry permit, you DO have the RIGHT to carry on your person. Take a class if you don't believe it. DUH!

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to just_makin_it:

Actually, if you have a concealed carry permit, you DO have the RIGHT to carry on your person. Take a class if you don't believe it. DUH!

You don't have a Right to carry with a permit, you have a license to carry with a permit...derived from the word permission.

I suggest maybe YOU should read your copy of the Bill of Rights and look up RIGHT in Websters. The Supremes surely will. No one conveys Rights upon US, they've already been articulated quite clearly in the Bill of Rights.

It's a license, a permit, extended to responsible persons who prove their capacity to act rationally.

And I'm not arguing that repeal of 2nd Amendment is a solution. I'm suggesting that mental health records be reviewed prior to and during the time a person holds a license.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to Damyankee:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Very cohesive thoughts...boil it down a bit more so it fits on a bumper sticker.

As to motor vechcles, if one is a habitual motor
vechile Law violator then YES by all means revoke the license and impund the vehicle.

And quite obviously Chicago is not gun free, neither is Ft Myers with 15 murders there this year so far.

Maybe you can't comprehend what I suggested which quite simply put is mental health review of gun owners. It's pretty easy to do these days.

KennyR (Inactive) writes:

Why would you want a gun at a movie theater? Some crazy guy could NEVER barge in and start shooting up the place. People are just paranoid.

FYI guns where banned at the particular Homes theater shooting. Do you think that's why he choice that location?

just_makin_it writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

You don't have a Right to carry with a permit, you have a license to carry with a permit...derived from the word permission.

I suggest maybe YOU should read your copy of the Bill of Rights and look up RIGHT in Websters. The Supremes surely will. No one conveys Rights upon US, they've already been articulated quite clearly in the Bill of Rights.

It's a license, a permit, extended to responsible persons who prove their capacity to act rationally.

And I'm not arguing that repeal of 2nd Amendment is a solution. I'm suggesting that mental health records be reviewed prior to and during the time a person holds a license.

Ummmmm, the permit says you have the right to carry, I didn't say the Bill of Rights says it.

swampbuggy writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

No one is proposing to repeal the 2nd Amendment but consider this, you do have the Right to own a firearm. You do not have the Right to walk around with it hidden on your person.

That capability is a priviledge not a right.

Keep a gun in your home is guaranteed to you be the 2nd but carrying it not.

I propose that mental health records be automatically collected, not transcripts or dictation about your condition but just the physicans diagnosis code, and if a firearm owner is flagged as having specific mental 'problems' that their weapons be removed from their possession.

Looky here, if gun owners don't act now then the anti-gun groups will.

Either a rational gun policy needs to be offered by the gun owners or one will be imposed.

Examples of crazies with guns that come to mind are the Zimmerman case, the colorado Joker case & more recently the whack job that murdered a door-to-door salesman because the saleman was in his driveway.

ALL of those individuals had run ins with the police or were being treated for mental illnesses of varying degrees the most recent murder of the salesman by a CCW holder that was quite obviously out of his mind.

I don't want THOSE types running around my neighborhood armed with guns. Do you?

It's a good idea but there is one small issue.
Your beloved federal government has privacy laws which prevent mental health records from being released(HIPAA.)

just_makin_it writes:

Ha Ha Ha good one Swampbuggy!

AndreTheGiant writes:

I am a registered Democrat and I believe in the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms.

As with all rights, there are limits - freedom of speech is no defense to yelling 'fire' in a theater, just as my freedom to extend my fist ends where your nose begins.

There is a happy medium here. The answer isn't 'carry anything up to and including weapons of mass destruction' just as much as it isn't 'ban firearms altogether'. It doesn't help that extremists on both ends of the spectrum will claim the end of the world is nigh if they don't get their way. Such is the state of politics today, though. It's unfortunate.

just_makin_it writes:

And now captain cataracts is scrambling to read the Hippa laws, trying to come up with another argument. LOL!

KennyR (Inactive) writes:

in response to LoadStar:

Thank you NDN. This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for in my comments the other day re the Colorado shooting, and concealed carry.

"If it's not listed in the statute by law, it can be carried into the location," Lee County sheriff's spokeswoman Sgt. Stephanie Eller said."

Good to know. While that statement seems like no big deal, it's the first time, anywhwere, I've ever heard it unambiguously spelled out. Well, sort of unambiguously that is. I still have the nagging question regarding what is permitted when the owner posts a "No Guns" sign - is it still legal to carry then? Seems to me that in the case of FL parks, the No Gun signs were ruled illegal and unenforcible - therefore via extrapolation, I would indeed be legal to carry even if the owner/manager posted signs to the contrary. I have no desire to tests this however, and would likely comply with the owner's request.

Lastly, all the talk of concealed carry being the answer in the Colorado case - MUTE - guns are not permitted in CO theaters! I agree, perhaps they should reconsider that law, but in the meantime, no one could legally carry inside that theater.

Guns are not banned in CO theaters, just THAT CO theater. I'm sure Holmes knew considered that. AMC Theaters in FL do not allow guns, by all means go there. Intresting NDN did not mention that, but they do have to leave facts out to advance their agenda.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to Damyankee:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Is that all you've got? Is that the best you can do?

If you are a representative 'slice' of the pro-gun movement then firearms ownership in the US is doomed.

LoadStar (Inactive) writes:

in response to KennyR:

Guns are not banned in CO theaters, just THAT CO theater. I'm sure Holmes knew considered that. AMC Theaters in FL do not allow guns, by all means go there. Intresting NDN did not mention that, but they do have to leave facts out to advance their agenda.

Didn't know that! Interesting spin, leaving that info out.

So, if AMC Theaters in Florida do not permit concealed carry in their theaters, are you still allowed to do it? I mean, do we take Sgt. Stephanie Eller at her word, or do we acquiesce to AMC's wishes, even if they are unlawful, or at least unenforcible?

BTW, what's with the friggin' animosity. Pull that giant bug out of your A.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to just_makin_it:

And now captain cataracts is scrambling to read the Hippa laws, trying to come up with another argument. LOL!

#1 It's not HIPPA it's HIPAA

#2 In order to obtain a license you as the applicant would have to grant permission to the governing body that they could obtain, electronically, any mental health diagnosis codes relative to you.

So in order to get a permit YOU as a responsible gun owner (applicant) would have to 'give' permission for that information to be shared not only when you make application but on a continous never-ending basis.

#3 Considering the inarticulate postings I keep reading in this blog maybe an IQ test would be called for; you have to have an IQ equal to or greathen than the calibre of weapon you want to carry.

PS You can't 'carry' a long barreled weapon can you.

Now let's have another one of your snappy clever comebacks.

KennyR (Inactive) writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

Here's something to consider...it is now known that the movie theater murderer was under mental health care.

I propose that a few changes be made to gun carry laws:

1) Remove the licensing from the State & give it to the Feds. This way there is a central point from which backgrounding & licensing occur.

2) A Fed issued license allow the gun owner to carry in all States. That ought to make the gun lobby happy.

3) When you apply for a permit to carry you must give the Feds the ability to review (ongoing not just at application time) your mental health records (just the diagnosis code) ANd if you are being treated for a mental illness revoke the license AND confiscate the weapons.

I'm tired of crazies running around with guns aren't you? I responsible gun owner is not going to balk at having their mental health condition monitored for the safety and well-being of others, I know I wouldn't mind.

It's time for gun owners to take these matters into their own hands and stop the political garbage, this isn't a liberal or conserative issue, it's an issue that involves US all.

You allow yourself to be digitally strip searched and gropped by the thugs at TSA when you travel. Keeping tabs on gun owners mental health condition is not that difficult to do these days.

I'm a responsible gun owner and I'm balking.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to swampbuggy:

It's a good idea but there is one small issue.
Your beloved federal government has privacy laws which prevent mental health records from being released(HIPAA.)

I apologize to you and the other readers for being unable to fit the entire concept presented on a bumper sticker.

Reading my previous posts re: this subject you as the CCW holder would give the governing body permission (by signing a HIPAA based form granting permission as you already do when sharing your information with other health care providers) that would enable continous monitoring of the diagnosis codes relative to mental health,

One set of Laws (HIPAA) does not prevent one from providing to the appropriate body your information.

No one is asking for permission to read your charts or physicians notes, just the diagnosis codes for you condition. If your diagnosis code is in a specific set of those recognized as (to use a technical term) the 'crazies' your license & firearms would be surrendered.

No too difficult to comprehend is it? Or maybe for you it is, you tell me.

Would a bumper sticker work better? How about:

NO GUNS FOR GUN NUTS! That sorta fits the bill.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to KennyR:

I'm a responsible gun owner and I'm balking.

You're balking? Good!

There isn't a chohesive firearms policy in this country and if gun owners do not act to prevent guns from getting or remaining in the hands of people that (after the atrosity is commited) are obvious nut cases there will be a very restrictive policy laided down.

And there isn't anything anyone of you can do if they impose it.

So gun owners need to come up with a solution before one is jammed down the collective throat. I guarantee no one will like what they've got planned. And they have a lot of momentum right now and the crazies with guns are just giving them more every day.

No one is suggesting that gun ownership will/could be curtailed but carrying a firearm anywhere but to the range? Sure they could get that. No high capacity magazines? They could win that one too. No black (assualt) gun? Yup, they could get that too. How about restricting the purchase of ammunition? That's another winner for them.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to Damyankee:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Oh boy what a comeback.

I suspect you are exactly the type of person that should not have access to firearms from your remarks.

Just like Mr Romney you're not the solution You're the problem!

I've offered up some general ideas for the gun owning public to at least sonsume and consider. You don't get it do you. That's OK. Everyone is entitled to be s-----.

Captian_Cataracts writes:

in response to Damyankee:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

LoadStar (Inactive) writes:

Well, I just got my answer. Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq., author of "Florida Firearms - Law, Use & Ownership" directly addresses the issue of what to do if a business has a "No Firearms" sign/policy. (see section on Armed Trespass)

To boil it down, it's ambiguous, uncharted legal territory, that only a fool would want to joust with. Unless you have alot of money for lawyers, and are willing to do time, obey the wishes of the establishment. If you feel so strongly that you need a weapon for your safety in that establishment, you shouldn't be going there in the first place, armed or not.

Colorado (Inactive) writes:

in response to PeterDanielRichter:

I'm very disappointed that NRA has endorsed State Rep. Kathleen Passidomo (Naples). Did you know that she wants to ban "Assault Weapons"? Did you know that she has a Republican running against her with a grade of AQ, and a Libertarian in the general (me) that will also receive an AQ? (Should be an A+++Q)

Listen to this radio clip from earlier this week and judge for yourself. She doesn't quite say it - but COME ON!

http://www.electRichter.com/media/Bob...

Banning assault weapons and keeping guns out of the hands of people like you would be a very good reason to vote for her. Guys like you are just a frustration away from another Aurora.

firejoke writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

You're balking? Good!

There isn't a chohesive firearms policy in this country and if gun owners do not act to prevent guns from getting or remaining in the hands of people that (after the atrosity is commited) are obvious nut cases there will be a very restrictive policy laided down.

And there isn't anything anyone of you can do if they impose it.

So gun owners need to come up with a solution before one is jammed down the collective throat. I guarantee no one will like what they've got planned. And they have a lot of momentum right now and the crazies with guns are just giving them more every day.

No one is suggesting that gun ownership will/could be curtailed but carrying a firearm anywhere but to the range? Sure they could get that. No high capacity magazines? They could win that one too. No black (assualt) gun? Yup, they could get that too. How about restricting the purchase of ammunition? That's another winner for them.

"chohesive", "atrosity", "laided"- What are these words?

When someone is killed by a drunk driver do liberals force every car owner to have a breathalyzer installed in order to drive? When a muslim terrorist attacks fellow soldiers at a military base do liberals blame Islam? Why is it that liberals will look at these occurrences as individual events perpetrated by lone individuals but want to blame/punish all guns/owners when a crazy shoots up a theater?

The libs will not get any of the restrictions you mention because republicans control the house and soon the White House.

WadeGarrett (Inactive) writes:

in response to Captian_Cataracts:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

After reading your rants you come up with an urban dictionary definition of "Captian"

And you have the nerve to call others s----- crackers?

WadeGarrett (Inactive) writes:

in response to iwantastiffdrink:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Bingo!

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features