I'm not all that familiar with Colorado's carry laws, but from what I've read, a few towns have outlawed it.

I have my doubts that a bunch of kids watching a Batman movie would have likely been carrying anyway though. Even if they were, I doubt that anything much could have been done about it in this case. Most unfortunate.

CIA/MK Ultra? Sorry, man, I'm not buying it.

“In what must be one of the most ironic affronts to common sense, I now learn that if indeed someone has been sitting in the Aurora movie theater with a concealed weapon and had had the gumption to whip it out and give Holmes a hot lead aspirin right between the peepers, he would have been arrested on a gun violation.”


          Time to unlearn this one, Sappybullwriter. Under Colorado law, the people in that theatre had a right to use physical force in self-defense, including deadly force under the circumstances they faced:


18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;

Would a person with “the gumption to whip it out” still be arrested on a gun violation? No, the choice of evils statute would simply make the violation of the gun ordinance or whatever it is not criminal at all:

18-1-702. Choice of evils. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of sections 18-1-703 to 18-1-707, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.

        And now we return you to today’s episode of the X Files in which Scully and Mulder ponder whether Sappybullwriter’s posts are “too weird to  make up”:

“Mulder, how could anyone actually believe it is illegal to stop a massacre?”
“Well, Scully the effect of  LSD use in the 60s and constant excessive masturbation have never been fully studied.”
"All right, I’ll give him a pass this time but I hope I’m never around when he has
'the gumption to whip it out.'”

Just recently in a "Stand your ground State"

A mother with children was trying to protect her kids and self from a proven violent ex-husband/SO whatever. A TRO had been already filed by the woman and she had 911 on the phone as he was trying to break through her front door. The cops were several minutes away. She fired a warning shot to frighten him away. The warning shot worked; but they have now imprisoned HER for a very long stretch for some ridiculous gun "Misuse" violation.

 Deep down LE knows it cannot(and will not) protect the public; but it constantly propagandizes that THEY are the "End All" in our protection. That is why most articles about a law abiding citizen protecting themselves, family and/or property successfully with a gun only make it to tiny, limited circulation papers and magazines. The LA PD does NOT want the LA Times serendipitously exposing the very real fact that POLICE are RE-ACTIVE as well as trained to wait until the crime has ceased so as to less endanger themselves as well as hopefully allow for more bloodshed/evidence to be later collected.

 Here in Gun control raveged California a citizen, property owner better be able to show TWO or more felon created bullet holes directly behind where they were standing at the time of their self defense or the State will probably award the "citizen's" property to the attacker or his surviving heirs while doing a 20 year stint for illegal self defense.

 Gang-bangers 'refer' to innocent bystander victims as "Mushrooms". The police intentionally "use" us as Mushrooms.