Suing Sheriff for not being able to defend yourself?

[Canute]

Just curious, has anyone ever applied for a CCW, been refused, been attacked later and sued for not having been able to defend themselves?

[Vtec44]

The Firearms Control Regulation Act was passed in 1976 by District of Columbia city council banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. In Warren vs District of Columbia in 1981 ruled "that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection". The Firearms Control Regulation Act is now unconstitutional, so I'm not sure if it will change future rulings as far as liablity of official police personel.

[fleegman]

Just curious, has anyone ever applied for a CCW, been refused, been attacked later and sued for not having been able to defend themselves?

Just to clarify, a lack of a permit doesn't mean you are unable to defend yourself, it only means you are unable to defend yourself lawfully.

[yellowfin]

Just curious, has anyone ever applied for a CCW, been refused, been attacked later and sued for not having been able to defend themselves?
I'd say it's more likely a family would sue. A lot of the scenarios that self defense would prevent don't lend themselves to suing after the fact by the victim.

Just to clarify, a lack of a permit doesn't mean you are unable to defend yourself, it only means you are unable to defend yourself lawfully. Exactly how legally can the law expect you to break the law? But then again it is an unconscionable law in the first place.

[sfpcservice]

But then again it is an unconscionable law in the first place.

amen. :banghead:

[Canute]

The Firearms Control Regulation Act was passed in 1976 by District of Columbia city council banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. In Warren vs District of Columbia in 1981 ruled "that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection". The Firearms Control Regulation Act is now unconstitutional, so I'm not sure if it will change future rulings as far as liablity of official police personel.

Well, I guess I was thinking about California in particular.
Seems like this could be a tactic that could be used to get "shall issue".
"You guys decided I didn't have a need and you were wrong, and it ended in tragedy."
Not a potential liability I would want to take on as an "issuing authority."

[Blackwater OPS]

Exactly how legally can the law expect you to break the law?

Well, that's called the necessity defense.

[Whiskey84]

Unfortunately (for the purposes of this thread) I don't believe that many of the people who apply for CCW's are the type to expose themselves to danger. Many, like myself, identify potentially dangerous situations and avoid them. You can't plan to avoid random acts of violence however...

[Canute]

Unfortunately (for the purposes of this thread) I don't believe that many of the people who apply for CCW's are the type to expose themselves to danger. Many, like myself, identify potentially dangerous situations and avoid them. You can't plan to avoid random acts of violence however...

Fortunately I live in western San Jo, which probably has the lowest crime rate in the bay. Also, being a country boy I pretty much naturally avoid the bad areas. Unfortunately I do have friends in parts of Sac and Berkeley that make me nervous and it's hard to avoid all risk.

[CCWFacts]

IANAL but my understanding is that such a suit would be nearly impossible:

821.2. A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by his failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where he is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked.

[swhatb]

IANAL but my understanding is that such a suit would be nearly impossible:

interesting....

[5hundo]

Just curious, has anyone ever applied for a CCW, been refused, been attacked later and sued for not having been able to defend themselves?

Sherriff Plumber of Alameda Co. was sued a while back for not granting CCWs to anyone.

After that, he made the standards achievable, yet very expensive and time consuming. Basically, to be able to carry a gun in Alameda Co., you needed to pass most of the aplication process to become a cop... :rolleyes:

...but it worked.

Anyone want to take the reins of a similar class-action suit in L.A. County? I'm game!!! I'll contribute!!! :D

[CCWFacts]

Sherriff Plumber of Alameda Co. was sued a while back for not granting CCWs to anyone.

Right, that's a violation of Salute v. Pitchess. Sheriffs must process every application. Blanket denial of everyone is not an option.

But the original poster was talking about the following scenario:


Person applies for permit
Person is denied
Person gets attacked and injured
Can he now sue the sheriff for the injury?


From reading that bit of code, my feeling is, no, it's "impossible" to do it. But I am not a lawyer so someone else who is might give a better explanation of this question.

[5hundo]

Right, that's a violation of Salute v. Pitchess. Sheriffs must process every application. Blanket denial of everyone is not an option.

But the original poster was talking about the following scenario:


Person applies for permit
Person is denied
Person gets attacked and injured
Can he now sue the sheriff for the injury?


From reading that bit of code, my feeling is, no, it's "impossible" to do it. But I am not a lawyer so someone else who is might give a better explanation of this question.

I wandered off topic a little bit...

Sorry about that. :o

Well, it's never "impossible" but suing the government for anything is usually a formidable challenge.

[Barbarossa]

Sherriff Plumber of Alameda Co. was sued a while back for not granting CCWs to anyone.


I went to high school with his Grandson.

[yellowfin]

Here's what gets me. So many of us know that applying to the worst counties' sheriffs won't do us any good, it's just forking out money for the application like betting on 00 on a roulette wheel that doesn't have a 00 slot. So we don't bother. Other folks don't know about CCW at all because it isn't accessible and thus by being a dead issue nobody tells them about it in the first place. They probably don't know at all about CCW in other states, either, so they don't know to demand it. Either way, there probably aren't a lot of CCW denials because few people know they can apply and many who know don't bother.

...and the cycle continues, and the status quo stays. I can almost guarantee you that most victims of violent crime here A) don't know about CCW B) didn't apply and C) would have been rejected anyway. The real question is that in restrictive issue counties, how many attacks are there on the people who get CCW's or in the same profession as those who do? Just how much evidence, if any at all, does the crackpot excuse that only a certain class deserve CCW's actually hinge on? How many cases?

Somehow I doubt if the number is even in double digits.

[CCWFacts]

Just how much evidence, if any at all, does the crackpot excuse that only a certain class deserve CCW's actually hinge on? How many cases?

The ostensible justification for the whole GC system is that criminals target people in the "lucky" class of people who have GC. I think the opposite is true. The people who are lucky enough to have GC tend to be upper-class people who live in good areas and have adequate security regardless of having a CCW. I would say that most criminals are desperate low-IQ drug users who act on impulse and target anyone who they see who appears to be middle class. I would guess that situations where a jeweler is targeted as he's walking around by some clever criminal are the exception, "lost in the noise" of other crimes that are just random attacks on anyone who looks like he might have a few bucks on him.

Plus, women get targeted just for being women. Can you imagine a woman applying, saying, "I'm exceptionally beautiful so I'm at a higher risk of rape"? It doesn't work that way; the crime is based on impulse and no woman is really any more or less at risk than others. The women who are safest are the ones that just happen to live in the better neighborhoods, that's all.

The whole thing is a sad joke on California.

[chiefcrash]

I'm gonna have to say no, you can't sue:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service.


sounds like a nice little safety net for the government/law enforcement...

[PatriotnMore]

Even if you did sue, this would end up a case of politics, and I doubt anyone would receive a favorable ruling, much like the D.C. case.

In addition, unless you were willing and had the $$, to take it on appeal all the way to the SCOTUS, the case(s) would never see the light of day beyond the local courts.

[Untamed1972]

Here is what I would say.....legally it might not fly. Now the media is a whole different story. It would have to be a case where say a woman in fear and verifiable danger from an spouse/ex/stalker applied. Perhaps there were verified threats or previous attacks already made. She applies and gets denied, and then the spouse/ex/stalker actually does end up attacking or killing her.....then I bet some attention could be brought to the issue. But I think the victim would have to be someone who engender sympathy from the masses. And the masses love to come to the defense of battered women and express their outrage for systems which failed to protect them.

But for if you're just an average guy....reality is....nobody cares.