Any lawyers want to speculate?

M1911

New member
Folks:

There's been some speculating going on in MA about the possible civil implications of the MA Attorney General's gun safety regulations. Specifically, some folks are speculating that if you use a gun to defend yourself, and that gun is not on the "approved" list (because you purchased it before the regulations went into effect), that the plaintiff's attorney will try to use that against you, since you were using an "unsafe" gun.

My general view is that unless they can prove that it was an accidental shooting, that the plaintiff's lawyer would be unlikely to make much headway with this. After all, if you gave the perp two to the chest and one to the head, it would be hard to argue that it was accidental.

Any lawyers care to speculate?

Jared
 
M1911, I imagine that is a go no where argument. I am not a lawyer, but I can tell a couple of things about your scenario. Such an AG is not an American and should be fired. Furthermore AGs are not authorized to enact laws. In a proper court of law with a proper jury the jury should not vote to convict a citizen on any unconstitutional law or charges. Then I find nothing in the Constitution related to a "list", approval or not. However, the Constitution does guarantee a citizen that government is forbidden to "infringe" on the Right to "Keep and bear arms".
 
In negligence cases, the violation of a statute or regulation may be relevant where the plaintiff is a member of a class of persons intended to be protected by the law or regulation in question.

Thus, if you have no brake lights and are rear-ended, the person rear-ending you can assert that you were the negligent party by virtue of your violation of the statute.

In the situation you describe, the bad guy is not _intended_ to be protected by laws requiring "safer" guns, although he probably is in fact.

In any event, probably no greater liability for shooting a bad guy with an unlisted gun.
 
Should Lawyers Run For Nonjudicial Office?

Ronald Bibace is a Fort Lauderdale businessman and constitutional scholar.

The Miami Herald, July 6, 1999

Lawyers who are members of the Florida Bar are barred legally from running for public office in the executive and legislative branches. The Constitution prohibits them from running for mayor, commissions, school board, sheriff, the Legislature or any other elected office that is not part of the judicial branch of government.

The language of the Florida Constitution's separation-of-powers clause, Article II, Sect. 3, is unambiguous. It states: "No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other two branches unless expressly provided herein."

In 1949 the Florida Bar was "unified" with, and became a part of the Supreme Court. (See Petition of Florida State Bar Assn. 40 So. 2d 902.) That made every state Bar member/lawyer a person "belonging to the judiciary branch of government." They are, therefore barred from holding public office in the other two branches of government.

This prohibition is not an "unintended consequence" of the 1949 action by Florida's lawyers. The prohibition lies at the very heart and the soul of both the Florida and the US constitutions.

Nonlawyer James Madison's Constitution had one principal goal: to create a government that had sufficient power to govern, but insufficient power to oppress. To do so, he neutralized the first four known sources of tyranny, which he identified as the monarchy, the aristocracy, the military and the church. Madison then addressed the last source of tyranny, which he defined as: "a same-hands group or faction that had a common interest adverse to the Nation as a whole." Lawyers and every other professional group fit this definition. To protect the state against this "same hands" tyranny, Madison implicitly instituted the separation-of power principle in the US Constitution. In Florida, Article II, Section 3, is the explicit state equivalent. Florida lawyers and the judges have ignored this prohibition.

What is true in Florida is also true all over the land. From this abuse of power by the legal profession, this nation now suffers from what Madison, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton called, "the very definition of tyranny." That tyranny arises when a single "same-hands" group makes the law, enforces the law and interprets the law.

That tyranny, whether or not perceived, is at the heart of most of the nation's problems in the areas of crime, education, health, welfare, frivolous lawsuits, devastating divorces and countless other problems. That tyranny has undermined the Constitution and fundamentally flawed all government. It has resulted in enormous harm to people, both in dollars and emotional distress.

Historically tyrants neither acknowledge their tyranny nor voluntarily give up their power. That explains why the members of the legal profession are in a state of denial.


That is why the people must correct the situation by voting all lawyers out of office outside the judicial branch. Until that occurs, very little substantial and permanent improvement will occur anywhere. If the situation is not corrected, the nation likely will go down to chaos, revolution and, perhaps, even civil war in the near future.

Further information on this and other constitutional matters is available at: http://www.constitutionalguardian.com

I might add lawyers are officers of any court where they do their stuff (work).
 
See signature!

------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
 
I guess I wasn't clear in my first post, so let me try to clear things up a bit.

First, Allan, you are correct that the AG is not authorized to enact laws. However, the AG is allowed to issue consumer protection regulations, which is what he did. The MA Supreme Judicial Court upheld his action. As for firing him, the AG in MA is an elected position and the voter in MA are somewhere to the left of Lenin. Regarding the 2nd Ammendment, yes, I agree with you that this is unconstitutional. That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Unfortunately there are a lot of unconstitutional laws in the US, and many won't ever get changed.

Second, I'm not talking about violating the regulations. The regulations govern the sale of guns. They do not govern the possession of guns that are no longer legal for sale in MA.

So, my scenario is this: Joe Blow legally owns a gun purchased prior to the issuance of these regulations. That gun does not meet the current regulations, and thus could not be sold as new in the state. But it is grandfathered (just as the wiring in your house is grandfathered if it was installed prior to the lastest revisions to the building code). Joe Blow hasn't removed any safety features, he just isn't using a gun that meets the latest regulations.

Would this add any additional liability? My guess is that possibly it would, in particular if the incident involves an AD. But less likely if it was an intentional shooting.

Jared
 
I'm with Jared.
If the discharge is somehow related to the missing safety feature, then it might be relevant.
 
M1911, you are correct about a cup of coffee and unconstitutional laws. Except in the end it is citizens who must enforce the Constitution. The only power citizens have over government is the vote, jury duty and the gun.

Maybe the following will help find the answer you seek. I am reasonable sure you won't find the answer you desire from an Admiralty Court nor its officers.

The Constitution

Section 9
Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
* Bill of Attainder (laws directed against a person or a group that pronounces them guilty of treason or felony and denies recourse to normal legal procedure)
* ex post facto Law (retroactive laws that have the effect of prejudicing the rights of a person in a criminal proceeding)

1.. Forbids all Bills of Attainder;
2.. Forbids ex post facto laws at all times (no exception for times of rebellion or invasion, or for the public safety).

Section 10

Clause 1. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder; ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
* emit (issue with authority)
* Bills of Credit (used by importers and exporters to finance the purchase of goods)
* Bill of Attainder (laws directed against a person or a group that pronounced them guilty of treason or felony and denied recourse to normal legal procedure)
* ex post facto Law (retroactive laws that have the effect of prejudicing the rights of a person in a criminal proceeding)
* impairing (diminishing in strength, value, or quality)
* contracts (agreements between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law (legislating bankruptcy laws is granted to Congress))

1.. Forbids any State from making treaties or agreements with other Nations;
2.. Forbids States from granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal (see Section 8, Clause 11) coin money; emit bills of credit;
3.. Forbids States from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;
4.. Technically, all States are violating the law of the land by using paper currency that is not backed by silver or gold. Today's paper currency consists of Federal Reserve notes, not backed by precious metals. There has been no amendment changing this provision of the Constitution;
5.. Prohibits States from passing bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (see Section 9 Clause 3);
6.. Forbids the States from passing laws that impair the obligations of contracts;
7.. Forbids States from granting titles of nobility.

Clause 2. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
* net (remaining after all deductions have been made, as for expenses)
* Produce (resulting product, profit)

1.. Demands consent from Congress before any State may tax imports or exports, except those necessary for paying a State's inspection laws;
2.. Any duty or imposed fee that Congress allows the State to charge is to be for the use of the United States treasury (States can not profit from taxing imports and exports);
3.. Grants to Congress the power to revise and control all laws a State may pass regarding fees for imports or exports.
 
Back
Top