Pro-Self-Defense Counter Suit

K

KAM_Indianapolis

New member
How about this action to counter the lawsuits against gun-makers.

Get all the victims of crime in cities that do not allow citizens to carry guns and go for a class action suit against the city for either A) not having the manpower to respond to every crime in a manner that protects people, or B) not allowing people the means to defend themselves.

Something tell's me that a mayor coming out and saying that the people who voted for him have no right to defend themselves wouldn't get him re-elected.

Shouldn't a city be held liable for harm inflicted upon a crime victim because the city could not protect them and would not allow the victim to protect themselves.

Peace...
Keith
 
Kam - there's enough case law to establish that a neither municipality nor its police force has an obligation to protect any single member of the public. Rather, it has a duty to protect the public at large.

Once case law may be established that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right guarenteed under the Constitution and that the selective doctrine of the 14th Amendment includes the 2nd to be applied to the states, then we, as citizens should be able to sue our local and state governments for infringement of our Constitutional rights under the color of authority.
 
Actually, KAM does have an idea:
Its unwinnable due to legal precedent, but then perjury was illegal too. It would make a great media story, especially if people involved were pissed off and vocal. The authorities would have to come out and say that you the individual don't count, only the body of society; and you don't have the right to defend yourself. We have recently had a great object lesson on the power of public polls.
How do ya think the public would react to being a bee or ant in a hive? ;)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC is correct, the idea isn't to win on any legal basis. It's a completely emotional appeal. It is the court of public opinion that we need to win over.

Peace...
Keith
 
DC - didn't think of it from that perspective. You and Keith have a point and now I'd like to suggest timing the suit.

Bring that suit during reelection and it'll certainly carry more weight than if the politico has several years to go in office. Can you imagine mothers (with their children in tow) and the elderly clamoring for their CCWs in court. Bandaged victims of crime will attest to brutality of their attackers and lament about their defenselessness because of the politico. Organized victim memorials with a sea of flowers at the steps of the courthouse could enliven the case. If orchestrated properly, it could be a fine media circus. Like was mentioned in another posting, the media is part of the entertainment industry and we might as well make it entertaining.
 
That is correct; as is demonstrated by the city lawsuits themselves, merit is NOT a prerequisite to bringing a case; their goal is to "drown" the industry in paperwork and legal fees, despite the fact they don't have a legal leg to stand on. One of the biggest problems is that ordinarily, attorneys won't take a plaintiff's contingency fee case unless it's likely to prevail. But here, however, (like the tobacco suits), you've got humpteen state and city attorneys' forces who are salaried with time on their hands to get the ball rolling (and the pols make political hay out of this); then when the industry is down, the contingency lawyers jump on the bandwagon to force a settlement for purely economic "nuisance-value" reasons (i.e. avoiding millions in legal bils), rather than the merits of the case. So, point being, countersuits are a great idea! Let's go on the offensive, and see how the pols like spending taxpayer money to defend these; their political currency would then take a nosedive. I'm all for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top