Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:19 PM
OssaMar OssaMar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default How about we sue all the Dems in the state house in smallclaims court for taking away

How about we sue all the Dems in the state house in small claims court for taking away our second amendment right to own magazine with more than 10 rounds and have to have bullet buttons?

If everyone on this forum sued them for the max which is $7500 in damages.

We could lock in to having to go to court everyday for the next 10 years.
If the do not show you win the case, They have to show up in person.


http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/s...sic_info.shtml

It might be the best $75 ever spent.


Just an Idea
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:04 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,526
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Amusing, but they're immune.

Government Code
Quote:
818.2.

A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law.

(810.6. “Enactment” means a constitutional provision, statute, charter provision, ordinance or regulation.

811. “Law” includes not only enactments but also the decisional law applicable within this State as determined and declared from time to time by the courts of this State and of the United States.

811.2. “Public entity” includes the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State.)
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:06 PM
AragornElessar86's Avatar
AragornElessar86 AragornElessar86 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: N. SD Co.
Posts: 1,458
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Amusing, but they're immune.

Government Code
That's just wrong.
__________________
Quote:
Wish I was rich instead of so damn good looking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213
I'll worry about Hannibal Lecter having too many rights when the rest of us get ours in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Dave View Post
Any American who isn't on a government watch list should be ashamed of themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:10 PM
Bsandoc40's Avatar
Bsandoc40 Bsandoc40 is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norcal
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Amusing, but they're immune.

Government Code
Well, there goes the premise that politicians work for us...
__________________

Auto-Ordnance 1911-A1 .45 ACP
Česká Zbrojovka CZ-75 SP-01 Tactical 9mm
Heckler & Koch VP9 9mm
Kimber 1911 "Raptor II" .45 ACP
Remington 870 Tactical Express 12gauge
Sig Sauer P226 MK25 Navy 9mm
Springfield Armory 1911 "MC Operator" .45 ACP
Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:16 PM
keenkeen keenkeen is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,421
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OssaMar View Post
How about we sue all the Dems in the state house in small claims court for taking away our second amendment right to own magazine with more than 10 rounds and have to have bullet buttons?

If everyone on this forum sued them for the max which is $7500 in damages.

We could lock in to having to go to court everyday for the next 10 years.
If the do not show you win the case, They have to show up in person.


http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/s...sic_info.shtml

It might be the best $75 ever spent.


Just an Idea
Assuming they did not have immunity to this type of action...What damages would you claim to get your $7500?
__________________
Quote:
"But far more numerous was the herd of such, Who think too little and who talk too much." -John Dryden
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:19 PM
snobord99 snobord99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SGV
Posts: 2,319
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Amusing, but they're immune.

Government Code
True, but I believe they'd still have to send someone to court to say "we're immune."
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:28 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 18,414
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I know I am not the only one who keeps saying this;

New amendment
"Congress shall pass no law that applies to the people of these United States, that does not equally apply to all elected officials and appointees."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:29 PM
HPBrowningMK3's Avatar
HPBrowningMK3 HPBrowningMK3 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles, PRK
Posts: 1,213
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

For as long as they are successful in having an uneducated flock of sheeple as their constituents, there is no danger to their losing an election. Sorry to sound so jaded but recent history gives me no confidence in CA voters.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:35 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

We have a tool that far outweighs that solution in terms of sensible, and that is one we use every November. It just has to be used correctly.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:54 AM
mmayer707's Avatar
mmayer707 mmayer707 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mountain House, CA
Posts: 687
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

...

Last edited by mmayer707; 04-23-2013 at 12:55 AM.. Reason: NM stupid question
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-23-2013, 1:20 AM
illegalalienfromarizona illegalalienfromarizona is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There's already an amendment that holds the government responsible: It's the 1st amendment:

Right to petition
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-23-2013, 5:10 AM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,659
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Amusing, but they're immune.

Government Code
Does injury include taking of property without compensation?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-23-2013, 5:24 AM
LuvLRBs LuvLRBs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 565
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sl0re10 View Post
Does injury include taking of property without compensation?
I think the government can confiscate what they deem to be an eminent danger to public safety without compensation. Otherwise they have to pay. I imagine any such effort would require a financial analysis of costs. The cost would be huge, we alone could buy a small car with what we have in a couple of scoped rifles. So actually that's one reason putting draconian restrictions on the firearms works better for them. You outlaw detachable magazines and bullet buttons, make it illegal to sell or give them to your kids, etc. Presto, the guns become useless hunks of metal and it doesn't cost the government anything. Plus if you don't register or comply with all the bad new laws you instantly become a criminal, and I think they like that.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-23-2013, 7:35 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AragornElessar86 View Post
That's just wrong.
It's not all bad if people supportive of the Constitution are the 'public entity'.

Quote:
818.2.

A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law.

810.6. “Enactment” means a constitutional provision, statute, charter provision, ordinance or regulation.

811. “Law” includes not only enactments but also the decisional law applicable within this State as determined and declared from time to time by the courts of this State and of the United States.

811.2. “Public entity” includes the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State.)
For example, your Sheriff turning a blind eye to any number of unconstitutional laws cannot be held liable for not enforcing them. The tough part is getting a consensus among the public entities to do just that.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:32 AM
Gunsmith Dan's Avatar
Gunsmith Dan Gunsmith Dan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 1,446
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

@Librarian

but that law only applies to State and Local laws .... they are not immune from being sued/charged in Federal Court for violating Federal Laws.

Also unless it is stated in another section of State Statute it seems that section does not hold State or Local officials immune if they "enforce state laws" .... enforcing has a different definition from adopting.

There is also this:

Quote:
In 1908, Ex parte Young established an exception to states' sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, holding that when a state official violates the federal constitution, the officer is “stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.”/84/ Ex parte Young permits suits for prospective and injunctive relief against a state official, usually the official in charge of the agency responsible for the violation, to enforce federal rights. Ex parte Young suits should expressly designate the defendant official as being sued in her official capacity. Neither the state nor a state agency can be named as the defendant./85/

Cases seeking to apply Ex parte Young may be brought in several different ways. First, suits may be brought directly under a federal statute containing an explicit or implicit private cause of action./86/ Second, suits may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a federal cause of action for violation of “rights” secured by the federal laws and the Constitution./87/ Third, in some cases such as those involving claims of federal preemption, a suit is simply brought under the federal question jurisdiction of the federal courts./88/
Not a small claims court kind of case but it is a way to go if certain groups wanted to go after the politicians more directly.

Last edited by Gunsmith Dan; 04-23-2013 at 9:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:49 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,526
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmith Dan View Post
@Librarian

but that law only applies to State and Local laws .... they are not immune from being sued/charged in Federal Court for violating Federal Laws.

Also unless it is stated in another section of State Statute it seems that section does not hold State or Local officials immune if they "enforce state laws" .... enforcing has a different definition from adopting.

There is also this:


Not a small claims court kind of case but it is a way to go if certain groups wanted to go after the politicians more directly.
Since the question was about Small Claims, I left Federal out of the reply.

And yes, other sections of GC do immunize officials and agents from suit over enforcement or lack of enforcement, issuing or failing to issue a license (818.4, 821.2), etc. Provable corruption - for example, that seems to have been a problem for Orange County's Sheriff Corona - can be prosecuted; no immunity there.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-23-2013, 1:20 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 794
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If these politicians breach their oath (to uphold the constitution) they should not be immune from prosecution
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-23-2013, 2:23 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,483
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
If these politicians breach their oath (to uphold the constitution) they should not be immune from prosecution
They are not immune completely as alluded to. But you can't flood them with lawsuits in order to render them unable to do their jobs. Imagine if the anti-2A people did this to the politicians supporting the 2A? They could use some Bloomberg money and utterly smash our supporters in to oblivion. Wouldn't be such a great idea to allow that?

Also, who decides what a breach of their oath is? The supreme court has already said laws can definitely limit the type of guns allowed to be owned by the public etc. So if some one backs a background check of any kind is that a breach of their oath? I would think a lot of people around here would say yes, but quite a few might say it's ill-advised but not a breach of their oath.

I understand your spirit, and I agree with you. I just don't see a way to make any of it reality without it being used against us and smashing us into obscurity and absolutely making 100% sure we loose the 2A permanently.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:10 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.