Why can't we sue the lawmakers?

F

FUD

Moderator
Gunmakers are being sued all over the country by various cities & states and while all of these suits (to date) have been won by the gunmakers, it is costing them a great deal in terms of time & money in having to defend themselves. Why can't we do the same thing? Every time a gun law goes into effect which limits & restricts our ability to defend ourselves, why can't we sue the lawmaker who introduced & sponsored such a law. For example<A HREF="http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37628" TARGET=_blank> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dZ: ... The bill would ban the possession or transfer of any handgun less than seven and one-half inches long and capable of holding two or more rounds of ammunition ... [/quote]</A>If passed, this bill will prevent tens of thousands of people from carrying a CCW even though they will be licensed to do so because guns in excess of 7.5 inches will no longer be legally sold. Whenever someone is a victim of a violent crime, why not sue the lawmakers who introduced & sponsored these bills? Even if every single case is lost, the lawmakers will have to spend time & money defending themselves in court wasting their time & money. If these tactics can scare S&W (at an estimated net worth of $50,000,000.oo) into caving in, it should be able to do the same to lawmakers who have much less resources since these suits would be brought against them privately.

After all, it only seems fair. Their action (the introduction of a bill/law) resticted the ability of someone to defend themself. They should be liable for the end result of that action and compensate the victim and his/her family.

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited July 17, 2000).]
 
7 1/2 inches? Obviously the the HCI Democrats are asking for more than they dream of accomplishing. Even IF such a bill is introduced in the House, it also must pass in the Senate. Surely there will be differences to be wrangled over in a joint committee, then the compromise bill must pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

Besides, the NRA and the Republicans will stand up for us, so look for a compromise which would only outlaw handguns less than 7 1/4 inches in length.

[snarl]

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 17, 2000).]
 
good idea in theory except for the fact that they do have ujnlimited resources = your money = tax dollars.

Worse comes to worse = they lose & they actually have to fork over some $, they'll whine about having to snip the budget, cut services all the while raising your taxes.

And, that nasty l'il ol' immunity clause. If we could sue them personally = different story altogether.

I don't see how the "frivilous lawsuit" bit doesn't apply to them tho'. Why isn't it fairly applied that whomever loses = pays the cost of the suit?

Besides, if they keep this pushing & pushing & pushing - there'll be a bill to pay - just won't be in $!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top