PDA

View Full Version : Could someone sue for CCW denial under the ADA?


high_lander
04-08-2011, 11:15 AM
I think that would be a great case for anyone who is physically limited in some fashion. one arm, leg, or something like that missing. Or that that being covered under current CCW case?

choprzrul
04-08-2011, 11:52 AM
...or perhaps a 60% service connected disabled vet....

Those ADA lawsuits bring some bucks. I wonder if we could bring the no-issue sheriff's to their knees financially?

.

choprzrul
04-08-2011, 12:30 PM
From This (http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm) .gov document:

Title II requires that State and local governments give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities

Now, if you could show that an issuing agency has active CCWs for disabled persons at a level below the expected %, then they might be open to a lawsuit? As an example, if 10% of society has a disability, and an agency only has 1% of CCW holders that are disabled; then a lawsuit might fly.

If so, ideally part of the settlement for ADA violation should be for the sheriff to become 'shall issue' to avoid any future ADA violations. Failing that, compel the sheriff to issue to all disabled persons and then attack under equal protection? Just trying to think outside the box for court mandated 'shall issue'.

.

wildhawker
04-08-2011, 12:47 PM
1) Very weak claim, if one exists at all. 2) Even assuming a successful claim, very limited usefulness to be found in a decision (subject class is a small fraction of law-abiding residents); extraordinarily high cost (money, time) and low ROI. 3) Not the way to secure 2A for all non-prohibited US residents.

We're going to secure 'bear' via US Const. Amends. 2 and 14. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the conversation.

-Brandon

hawk1
04-08-2011, 12:55 PM
1) Very weak claim, if one exists at all. 2) Even assuming a successful claim, very limited usefulness to be found in a decision (subject class is a small fraction of law-abiding residents); extraordinarily high cost (money, time) and low ROI. 3) Not the way to secure 2A for all non-prohibited US residents.

We're going to secure 'bear' via US Const. Amends. 2 and 14. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the conversation.

-Brandon

Yet isn't that one of the claims made to kill the roster?..:confused:

wildhawker
04-08-2011, 1:43 PM
Yet isn't that one of the claims made to kill the roster?..:confused:

No. The State's de jure restriction on Vargas' acquisition of a factory-configured firearm having an ambidextrous-mag release (by way of the "Roster" statutes) cannot survive any level of constitutional scrutiny as the State admits such a firearm can be lawfully configured from an otherwise-identical Glock 21SF-STD, highlighting the State's lack of even a rational basis for the law.

From the plaintiff's P&A in support of MSJ (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/MSJ-2009-09-02/14-24.pdf):

Roy Vargas, born with only a left arm, is denied access to a handgun with an ambidextrous magazine release, even though the state would allow him the identical model handgun with a right-handed magazine release he cannot operate.

Plaintiff Roy Vargas has sought to purchase a Glock 21 SF with an ambidextrous magazine release, and has identified a willing seller who stands ready to deliver said handgun to Plaintiff. SUF 40. However, Vargas cannot lawfully purchase and take possession of the handgun as that handgun is not listed on the California Handgun Roster. SUF 41. Vargas fears arrest, prosecution, fine and incarceration if he completes this handgun purchase. SUF 42. Vargas was born without an arm below the right elbow. SUF 43. The Glock 21 SF-STD with a standard magazine release is listed on the California Handgun Roster. SUF 44. However, the Glock 21 SF with ambidextrous magazine release is superior for left-handed shooters such as Mr. Vargas, as opposed to the approved version of the Glock 21. SUF 45. Glock’s efforts to add the Glock 21 SF with ambidextrous magazine release to the California Roster have failed. SUF 46. However, Defendant permits Glock customers to have their Glock 21 SF-STD handguns fitted with an ambidextrous release at the Glock factory. SUF 47. As state officials wrote Glock in response to the gunmaker’s pleas to include the ambidextrous Glock 21 SF on the roster:
A California owner of a Glock handgun model with a standard magazine release who wishes to have his or her handgun model retrofitted with an ambidextrous magazine release may send the firearm to Glock. Glock could then retrofit the handgun and return it to its owner. No further testing of the retrofitted handgun would be required.
Exhibit H. In other words, California permits the sale of a Glock 21 SF-STD, and the alteration of that handgun by Glock to add an ambidextrous magazine release, but will not allow consumers to purchase new Glock 21 SFs with an ambidextrous magazine release in the first place.

dfletcher
04-08-2011, 1:59 PM
I think that would be a great case for anyone who is physically limited in some fashion. one arm, leg, or something like that missing. Or that that being covered under current CCW case?

ADA, in short, requires that a handicapped person be afforded roughly the same treatment as a person who is not handicapped. If a person who is not handicapped has to ride an unreliable, shaky elevator to their work office ADA requires only that a handicapped person be afforded equal access to that same unreliable, shakey elevator and their work office - not a better or more reliable elevator.

ADA requires equal treatment, not better treatment.

LockJaw
04-08-2011, 2:01 PM
Maine has addressed concerns of handicapped people opening knives with only one hand. This was done though the legislative process.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-supreme-court-foid-119493094.html

I posted a thread concerning this issue earlier.

dfletcher
04-08-2011, 2:11 PM
From This (http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm) .gov document:



Now, if you could show that an issuing agency has active CCWs for disabled persons at a level below the expected %, then they might be open to a lawsuit? As an example, if 10% of society has a disability, and an agency only has 1% of CCW holders that are disabled; then a lawsuit might fly.

If so, ideally part of the settlement for ADA violation should be for the sheriff to become 'shall issue' to avoid any future ADA violations. Failing that, compel the sheriff to issue to all disabled persons and then attack under equal protection? Just trying to think outside the box for court mandated 'shall issue'.



I work with building owners and management in SF. Dealing with ADA violations can be difficult, very time consuming. Even if there is only a perceived violation the knee jerk response I see is "do what they want, I don't want an ADA proctology exam ... excuse me, lawsuit on my hands".

A nearly "shall issue" policy (to any handicapped person) resulting from ADA legal action may not be too far fetched, at least from my layman's POV & experience. Where it goes from there I wouldn't know.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 2:16 PM
ADA lawyers are seen as disreputable. Are there any that aren't?

tdaughg
04-08-2011, 2:45 PM
a friend and i were talking the other day if you could make an ada claim for sbr/sbs. think about the length of the stock on most rifles/shotguns and then think how hard it would be for a dwarf to shoulder it. they dont need a special permit to get their cars modified with extended controls so they can drive so why would they need it to go hunting. what about states that have complete bans on sbr/sbs. isnt that a discrimination case?

erik
04-08-2011, 7:16 PM
I'd love to see (even to the point of being part of) an ABA challenge on the pistol grip portion of the AWB.

I obliterated* my elbow in a motorcycle accident and have limited wrist _rotation_. My right hand can't do palm up. It can't even make it within 45° of palm up. Holding a traditional style rifle stock is "interesting". (read: probably unsafe)

It wouldn't be a complete fall of the law, but it would be a piece.



* Yes, obliterated, it took a team of 3 surgeons 6.5 hours to reassemble it. 3 plates, numerous screws.