Sue to strike down Gun Control Laws?

[Dead]

Well if everyone wants to sue everyone else, why dont we do the same?? I know it would cost ALOT, but there are MORE than enough people willing to give to that cause. What would be the best way to go about this??? I have basiclly NO legal background, so am unsure how it would be done in the most productive manner. Does there need to be an "arrest" for an alleged crime to beable to have a law struck down by the courts??? That would be rather absurd, if someone need be arrest before a law can be fought!!

------------------
-AoW[t]-Dead [Black Ops]

 

[RWK]

Dead,

With respect (and I strongly suspect we philosophically agree) I offer two points for your consideration.

First, there is no such thing as an "advisory judgment" or a "theoretical lawsuit". In a criminal matter, a prosecution is necessary, which on appeal could proceed through the state and Federal criminal justice systems, conceivably to the US Supreme Court. In civil matter, there must be an actual unfairness imposed on an individual; here, too, potential appellate actions could lead throughout the state and Federal court systems.

Second -- and more important -- what happens if we file suit and loose? Consider the following hypothetical example: A citizen in Washington, DC -- which has very strict anti-firearms laws -- files a suit against the mayor (and, possibly other government officials) asserting that the Second Amendment permits him to carry a concealed handgun and, therefore, that various DC laws and administrative regulations are unconstitutional. This matter finally comes before the US Supreme Court, and it decides in favor of Washington, DC, not our RKBA advocate. Suddenly, based on this decision, many favorable state laws might be adjudged unconstitutional and we would be in an even worse condition than we are now.

In sum, as the old axiom says: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[USP45usp]

What is interesting here is the fact that we all Want our Rights back but are too afraid of the government and government appointed justices to carry the fight to the ultimate level (civil level). I agree with the first post that this may be the only way to regain our Rights but then again I agree with the second that it's a 50-50 chance of losing our Rights. As things are going now, the road traveled is leading up to the total banning of some Rights, which will just happen at a slower pace then an outright loss in the courts. So, at this point in time, we're headed toward ruin anyway. I think that IF a lawsuit is filed and goes all the way, now is the time to do so. If we were to wait until five years have passed, or even ten, with the current "dumbing down" of America still in motion, then it WILL be a loss even before it starts. Now, the only other alternatives is to reverse the trend, with newly elected officials, and slowly regain our Rights. Yes, it's taken over sixty years to lose what we had, it will take another sixty years to regain, and we may not gain everything as it once was. Other, less probable, alternatives are the complete overthrow of the current system; or getting enough American People to demand a revision of the current system. The eroding of Rights works the same way as the local robber: Once he/she (the robber) gets their foot in the door, they will continue to force thier will upon the person until they either gain what they wish or until they are forced to remove their person from the property. I look at the government and anti organizations as children in a toy store. You have those parents who will put their foot down, control, and punish (if need be) the temper tantaums of their child. Then you have the other parents, who say no, but whose children have learned that an intense whinning session, the dropping and screaming unto the floor, the embarresment they are putting upon their parents will gain them that toy, sooner or later. We, the People, are supposed to be the parents of the government, but some (most) will give in to the whinning and tantaums while others (us) try to be firm and say NO. But the child has learned how to control their parents. The child knows that through embarresment, intimidation, and getting others to side with them they will get what they want. Now is the time to put our foot down with the child, to tell the other parents to butt out, and to bring back the old fashioned butt whopin every now and then. Until we regain control over this child, it will grow up to be a burden upon us.

USP45usp

 

[andyb]

Hell of an analogy, USP, the 'parent' thing works.

Though one thing in my mind is 'timing'. On one side, your 'now' could do it ... upcoming office seekers might see the handwriting on the wall and become part of it (if the strength were there). And, since it will take some time, we'll be past Jan 20th when the new administration takes hold (that perhaps gaining some good justice appointments).

On the other side, it has a possibility to allow Gore to win due to backlash - we can then forget it because a Gore win will have the fence-sitters thinking it's "the will of the people".

Maybe it's a toss up after all. But if the 80m gun owners would cohesively do something ... that would open all eyes. Now - how can that be made to happen?

 

[ctdonath]

Some in-process cases come to mind.

Emerson: will determine whether the RKBA can be casually suspended.

Stewart (aka. Maadi-Griffin): will determine (1) whether an unfinished receiver & rifle kit is a "firearm", (2) whether the BATF has jurisdiction to make such a decision, and (3) whether an otherwise law-abiding citizen can have his RKBA revoked based on a felony involving a petty issue, entrapment, gov't pressure, and plea-bargaining steming from inability to hire a decent lawyer.

Shoemaker: determining (1) whether keeping guns locked in a car on school grounds is protected by RKBA, and (2) whether declaring one will engage in RKBA civil disobedience is grounds for arrest.

Ohio foursome: Just got anti-concealed-carry laws suspended pending evaluation of anti-RKBA law.

There are cases under way. Most cases, unfortunately, require an actual arrest. Very few cases can be brought without being arrested. In a notable case, an RKBA lawyer purchased the peices of an "assault weapon" just before the 1994 ban, then after the ban sued for the right to assemble the pieces; the court dismissed the case for "lack of standing" despite the fact that he had as much standing as anyone could possibly have.

Also...some high-level RKBA types have expressed the fear that if a 2nd Amendment challenge were actually brought and succeeded, the anti-gun legislators would take a new, powerful approach: actual forming of "well-regulated militias", wherein all would be assigned a gun (say, a Thompson Contender) and thus have no need for others, and required to participate in monthly drills...and if one failed to participate, s/he would be deemed unable to carry out appropriate responsibilities, and the gun would be revoked.

 

[sedwards]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Also...some high-level RKBA types have expressed the fear that if a 2nd Amendment challenge were actually brought and succeeded, the
anti-gun legislators would take a new, powerful approach: actual forming of "well-regulated militias", wherein all would be assigned a gun (say, a Thompson Contender) and thus have no need for others, and required to participate in monthly drills...and if one failed to participate, s/he would be deemed unable to carry out appropriate responsibilities, and the gun would be revoked.[/quote]

'Cept that the applicable statute says that the militia shall be armed with "weapons in common use of the time."

I haven't seen any army types running around with Contenders lately...

Then again, I guess they could just change the law...