Is this a legitimate argument...

[MrSigmaDOT40]

All they will say is that you could not have defended yourself with a firearm and would have made the situation worse. Then they will throw the case out. Thats how they think and work.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

The state is almost never liable for any injury. You have to prove the state knew you were going to be attacked and purposely denied you any means of protection. They don't even have to necessarily show up if you called them.

They can be sued for deprivation of CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

[OCMI_Teddy]

It makes at least as much sense as the person that ordered a hot coffee at a well known fast food joint and then sued because the coffee was hot and won the case.

I hate when people refrence that case, McDonalds were definantly in the wrong on that one.
/rant

back on topic, I'd like to see it tried, however it would be doubtful it would win in court.

[Warhawk014]

You could sue, but my bet is that you wouldn't win. Prepare to get mad and disgusted, then read this:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

excellent article, read the whole thing and it speaks the truth.

[snobord99]

I hate when people refrence that case, McDonalds were definantly in the wrong on that one.
/rant

back on topic, I'd like to see it tried, however it would be doubtful it would win in court.

I somewhat agree McDonald's acted negligently to an extent, but just the sound of "she sued someone because she spilled coffee on herself" sounds frivolous .

[Maestro Pistolero]

Well, "you're legally allowed to OC" is what their defense could be...

That wouldn't withstand any level of scrutiny. It totally depends on incorporation, but once applied to the states, the SCOTUS' Heller decision says that the firearm must be available for "immediate use for self defense". Laws requiring that the firearm be trigger-locked or disassembled were invalidated.

That the scope of the Heller case was 'in the home' will be made irrelevant by forthcoming cases concerning the 'bear' part of 2A. Heller was just about 'keeping'. Nonetheless, the SCOTUS said that Dick Heller may 'CARRY' his revolver in the home, which is more than Guru even ask for. Obviously, no fundamental constitutional right ends at your doorstep.

Requiring legally carried guns to be unloaded would amount to the same thing. . .they simply wouldn't work for the intended purpose of "immediate use for self defense".

[snobord99]

Let me be clear: it doesn't matter if 2A was incorporated or not. This will not win. As was mentioned, you have to prove causation. There is pretty much no way to prove that if you had a gun, you would not have been shot. Sure, maybe you could have shot the other guy, but can you prove that they wouldn't have shot you too? In addition, robbery is a supervening illegal act that would basically prevent the state from being liable.

Think of it this way. If you had a CCW and went to a private business that doesn't allow guns but was later shot by someone that slipped through with a gun, could you sue the business for not allowing you to carry your gun in? No. You might win for them being negligent by letting the other gun in, but you will not win because they didn't allow you to carry your gun in.

[Flintlock Tom]

sorry Megan:We Californians DO NOT have the RKBA. As of now, it's not in the CA Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states.

If/when incorporation happens THEN you have the "right"...

I beg to differ, the U.S. Constitution, including the BoR, is in the CA state constitution. Article 3, Section 1.
CA Constitution
However, you are correct that we do not have the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms. Mainly because the legislature ignores it.

[pTa]

I beg to differ, the U.S. Constitution, including the BoR, is in the CA state constitution. Article 3, Section 1.
CA Constitution
However, you are correct that we do not have the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms. Mainly because the legislature ignores it.

Article 3 Section 1;
The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

How righteoius... Well spoken Thomas!

[kermit315]

I would like to see this played out real time. Could be interesting.

[wash]

...since this is not a shall-issue state, but a discretionary issue state, you would have a very hard time making a claim of deprivation of due process unless you could show, for example, that every other CCW applicant in a position similar to yours was granted the CCW permit, but that you were denied the same because the sheriff bore some animus or harbored some other discriminatory intent to deprive you specifically of the same consideration that he gave others. A very tough case to make. This is all theoretical, of course, and realistically speaking, wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss unless you had really good facts on your side.

I wonder about your "every other" statement.

Wouldn't you be entitled if they issued a permit for a campaign donor with the same good cause statement?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that seems like an angle that might work.

[Lancear15]

sorry Megan:We Californians DO NOT have the RKBA. As of now, it's not in the CA Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states.

If/when incorporation happens THEN you have the "right"...

Exactly.

If/when we get 2A incorporated, then you would have a law suit.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

I wonder about your "every other" statement.

Wouldn't you be entitled if they issued a permit for a campaign donor with the same good cause statement?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that seems like an angle that might work.

It was just an example. As another example, if you could prove that the Sheriff's denial of your application was based on race, you could say that that constitutes an unconstitutional deprivation of due process.

[KylaGWolf]

Tom while that is a good catch it seems our government seems to ignore their own rulings on things when it suits them. Although I wonder if that could be a way to fight for 2A rights that nice little clause.

[snobord99]

unless you could show, for example, that every other CCW applicant in a position similar to yours was granted the CCW permit, but that you were denied the same because the sheriff bore some animus or harbored some other discriminatory intent to deprive you specifically of the same consideration that he gave others. A very tough case to make. This is all theoretical, of course, and realistically speaking, wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss unless you had really good facts on your side.

But other than that, no, I don't think you can sue successfully, sorry.

If you showed that you still won't win a due process claim since it would be an equal protection claim . That said, you could do this (if you can do it at all) without ever getting robbed which then misses the whole point of the OP's hypothetical.