Suing states for right to carry

[toreskha]

I have an idea that I just figured I'd throw out and see what everyone things. I'm being serious about this, too.

As an example case, say someone in a PR like Illinois or Maryland had applied for a CWP. They were refused. Then, they're attacked and either seriously injured or killed - in a clean-cut situation where a firearm could have saved their life. Say it was a woman who was jogging in the park and was followed for a while, before being attacked and killed by a man who was using nothing more than a broken beer bottle. Obviously a firearm would have been more than a match for her attacker and she would likely still be alive.

What if her family (or she, if she's still alive) were to sue the state that they live in, claiming that she died as a result of the state using the force of law to prohibit her from defending herself in a way that would be considered normal by a "reasonable person"?

It would be interesting to see what happens in a lawsuit like this that indirectly accuses the state of responsibility for the death of one of its citizens. Even if it doesn't get far initially, additional suits launched in the same spirit might help to bring attention to the issue and get people to think differently about it.

[Glock Fan]

A group of attorneys are looking into that angle here in PRHI. Problem is that they cannot agree on the legal standing of the chief of police. A couple of them think he cannot be held liable because of state statutes, a couple of them think he can. Once they get their act together, I'm sure you'll be hearing about it.



gf

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by toreskha

I have an idea that I just figured I'd throw out and see what everyone things. I'm being serious about this, too.

As an example case, say someone in a PR like Illinois or Maryland had applied for a CWP. They were refused. Then, they're attacked and either seriously injured or killed - in a clean-cut situation where a firearm could have saved their life. Say it was a woman who was jogging in the park and was followed for a while, before being attacked and killed by a man who was using nothing more than a broken beer bottle. Obviously a firearm would have been more than a match for her attacker and she would likely still be alive.

What if her family (or she, if she's still alive) were to sue the state that they live in, claiming that she died as a result of the state using the force of law to prohibit her from defending herself in a way that would be considered normal by a "reasonable person"?

It would be interesting to see what happens in a lawsuit like this that indirectly accuses the state of responsibility for the death of one of its citizens. Even if it doesn't get far initially, additional suits launched in the same spirit might help to bring attention to the issue and get people to think differently about it.

Remember the massacre at Luby's in Texas? A woman who was there testified before the Texas legislature that if she had been allowed to carry concealed (car carry for "travelers" was allowed, and because of that, her gun was in the car) she could have stopped the shooter before he had a chance to kill more people.

So, if it worked there, it could work somewhere else too.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Remember the massacre at Luby's in Texas? A woman who was there testified before the Texas legislature that if she had been allowed to carry concealed (car carry for "travelers" was allowed, and because of that, her gun was in the car) she could have stopped the shooter before he had a chance to kill more people.

So, if it worked there, it could work somewhere else too.

That was Texas. Unfortunately, legislators who are either dedicated anti-gun or have been beaten into submission by antis won't take someone like that at their word. They need legal threats and serious long-term bombardment.

A case like that would probably get shot down on the first few tries, although it would carve out new territory. I'd like to push a philosophy of law and public consciousness that strongly posits self-defense (preservation of one's own life) not just as a legal defense, but as an inalienable human right. It's something that everyone is entitled to, and no one has the right to take away - especially the state, under general conditions where free people are concerned.

Every time someone who could have used a gun in their defense but was prohibited by law is killed or injured, a civil suit and a fanfare of publicity should follow, with said person or their family ripping their state government a new one for abandoning them to the wolves.

[gdcleanfun]

...I am very surprised that it hasn't happened yet, and I seriously believe that this is what needs to happen and what will happen in California, too. Being that it's such a litigious state, filing a legal case against that state would make sense. Apparently, D.C. v Heller wasn't "strong" enough to change all the anti's minds across the board. Horrendously, similar to what it usually takes to get a single traffic signal installed, it might come to pass that someone is hurt or killed, but that is what it takes to change the laws in that state.