Mayors Face Lawsuit Filed Tuesday by Gun Owner Group

Not that I don't support harassment of the unconstitutional, libelous, absurd action of the mayors, but what chance of success does such a suit really have?

Won't the mayors simply claim sovereign immunity, or file an 11th amendment challenge? The Supreme Court has been hearing 11th amendment challenges recently and generally sides with the States.

Any lawyers out there who can give us an idea of the probable outcome of this suit?
 
Valdez...
Consider this: Say you are ambivalent about RKBA, you don't have feelings either way. You are also a citizen of a city that is sueing. The suit is paid for with your tax dollars....money that will not go for the city services that it was intended. Also recall, that these suits have been largely unsuccessful and admittedly intended to harrass and bankrupt the gun manufacturers. So, your tax money is being wasted, you weren't consulted about pissing $$ away on this political agenda, the services still need to be paid for.....do they raise taxes?

Now, all of a sudden, your city is sued because of its harrassment suit. Ooops...the city now has to spend more tax monies to defend itself and they could lose...lower quality city services and maybe higher taxes. You don't like this so you organize some group to protest, write letters, become an activist....radio, TV and newspapers report a growing coalition of angry citizens....PO'd about fiscal mismanagement, restraint of trade, political abuse and corruption. Why is your mayor doing this? Does he/she have the authority to spend public monies like this? What is the motivation? Perhaps to have the public fund a political ploy that he/she can capitalize on a later bid for higher office?

This is about political abuse, corruption and money....you don't even need to have an opinion about guns. Because of this and the tobacco precident, no business is safe from extortion.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Donate to the SAF TOLL FREE: 800-426-4302

email: www@saf.org

Ante up all. They're for real.

CMOS




------------------
GOA, TSRA, LEAA, NRA, SAF and I vote!
 
This lawsuit seems to be exactly what people on this BBS have been talking about for months. Now that it is a reality, please chip in to support SAF.

Thanks.

- DA

SAF, GOAL
 
Also email the URLs to your local papers, TV stations etc. I live near Detroit and though I've been following the cases last I heard Detroit hadn;t filed a lawsuit but the local Mayor was listed as a defendant. So I forward the URLs, SAF contact info, Court case # to all the local news and said is this where our money is going? Hopefully, the news will report on this fairly,etc. One can hope.
 
I have noticed that none of the major news groups have reported anything on this, while they were yelling from the tops of their radio masts when the cities decided to sue gun makers.

To shorten my signature; "Let there be jehad!" GO SAF.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
I hope the Mayors loose their ass.

It would be nice, for a change, to see out tax dollars used for a pro gun cause!

Let's hope it eventuates.
 
I did a search of all major papers on the Boston Globe site and got two hits; the Gary, Indiana Post-Tribune and the Philadelphia Enquirer. The Miami Herald had something to say but only that the suit had mistakenly named the wrong mayor.

It took some looking around but I did find some stories. The Boston Herald and the Boston Globe were both totally silent on this story as was the San Francisco Examiner although their sister paper, the Chronicle did have a story. I shall have to chide the Boston papers about this oversight.

For those of you who would like to see what the local papers have said on this:

THE MIAMI HERALD (fee $1.95) http://www.newslibrary.com/download.asp?DBLIST=mh99&DOCNUM=76976

San Francisco Chronicle (free) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/12/02/MN43815.DTL

L.A. Times (free until 1-9-99) http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/slwebcli?DBLIST=lt99&DOCNUM=102964&QDesc=Gun-Rights%20Group%20Sues%20Mayors
 
Foxnews.com ran it, with one amusing (not!) error: They provided a link to the NRA, but not SAF. I promptly fired off an email in my usual delicately-phrased, diplomatic style. ;)

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property,
or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question.."
Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.


[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited December 04, 1999).]
 
I am trying to write letters to The local papers here in Louisiana, to alert people that its their tax money that is funding all these suits. What I need to know is, what can be done to stop them from using it in such a way? And is it possible for me to get copies of how much money is being spent to fund this? I understand most of you are not from La. but i would appreciate any help i can get on the matter, considering Im not much of a writer
 
As mentioned above, there was quite a bit of hoopla, and many inches of type devoted to the Mayors' initial suit. Now that it looks as if it will backfire, the liberal media gets a case of the mutes.

Check out the usually wordy Washington Post's
coverage. I don't believe I have ever seen a shorter news story.

Maybe my optimism was at work, but I swear I could almost smell the fear. OhmiGawd! The sheep are starting to bite back!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-12/01/044r-120199-idx.html

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Cuz...

I seriously doubt that the monetary figures you want are available. For the following reasons:

The suits are allegedly to re-coop monies spent on medical, investigative, etc due to gun violence. Those monies were taken in taxes before the fact...you'd still be paying that much tax even if absolutely no gun violence occurred....you paid in advance to have ER hospitals, cops, city attornies, etc. The only and absolute validity these suits could have is if the cities said they would refund those costs to you in either lower taxes or rebates. They haven't said that have they? YOU ALREADY PAID BEFORE THE FACT and they aren't telling you that you will get money back!! Its a net gain! If the cities win, its more money for them, not lower taxes or rebate to you. Think business and finances.

Tho not gun related, this is an example:
Recall 1988 Calif earthquake. Interupted the World Series. To pay for fixing the damage, sales tax went up "temporarily. It was all fixed 2 yrs ago and they decided that the temporary increase will stay permanent. They never give back money and always seek more.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Back
Top