Suing over gunlaws

V

ViKing

Inactive
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.

State and city governments are inacting more restrictive gun laws, suing gun makers, etc.

Hypothetically, say we live in Pleasantville. I work downtown, and have a carry permit. I shoot in a local pistol league, and often shoot the high score of the night.

Remember this is hypothetical, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN TO ME!

The city govt now passes a law banning handguns, and I can no longer carry legally. Out of respect for the new law, I no longer carry. I am attacked by three assailants and maimed in the stairwell of a parking garage a month later. I lost and eye and the use of 1 arm.

If I could sue the city, city councilmen, mayor, police chief, etc. for damages and win a judgement large enough to cause them great financial pain, wouldn't this make politicians think twice before restricting my right to defend myself?

Just an idea ...
 
Why not? Sue Sue Sue!!! If you win it will create a nice Precedent!!! If you lose oh well appeal time! :)
 
You couldn't show either of two things:
1) that the state had any reason to believe you were in danger.
2) that you would have, difinitively, been able to prevent your injuries.

You'd be better off carrying anyway, shooting the assailents, and trying to stay out of jail later on.

Remeber what the NY State Judge said in the Dialo case, "everyone has the right to defend themself." I wasn't aware that this only held true for Cops.
 
In order to work I believe the mayor, city councilmen, etc. would have to be held personally liable, i.e. not be able to pass the cost of any judgment against them on to the taxpayers.
 
The authorities are shielded from lawsuits as they have passed legislation which does so. They would simply have the suit thrown out.

The ones who should be suing the government are ex-felons who have either completed their sentence or been honorably discharged from parole. They are excluded from the ownership or possession of a firearm for their protection and are relegated to calling armed persons to their aid as their sole remedy under the law.

The authorities have the law on their side as it states that they have no duty to preserve the life of any individual. This places those so deemed as being excluded from owning a firearm from having no other recourse than to call those who are exempt from any duty to respond. These people should be able to sue as all other responses foir them to preserve their lives has been removed. When the protectors fail to respond, and they are harmed, they should be allowed to sue -- assuming they are alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top